Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[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."

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.

Originally, the US Constitution had little to say about the dominant capitalistic organ of our time, the corporation. Elected representatives of both major political parties in the US depend on the richest 1% of citizens to fund their campaigns and retirements, and the richest 1% depend on corporations to supply their incomes. IMHO, a Second Constitutional Convention would be required to limit corporate influence, but not if Republicans AND Democrats controlled the convention.

 

[georgephillip]

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).

The biggest advantage I've found over the past four years that I've been posting here comes from exchanging political and economic opinions with individuals I probably couldn't spend five minutes with in the same room; too many of us waste our time communicating solely with those we agree with. Hopefully, future events will give all of us more reason to find common ground instead of simply repeating our historical biases.

 

[gnarlylove]

The biggest advantage I've found over the past four years that I've been posting here comes from exchanging political and economic opinions with individuals I probably couldn't spend five minutes with in the same room; too many of us waste our time communicating solely with those we agree with. Hopefully, future events will give all of us more reason to find common ground instead of simply repeating our historical biases.

That inability to spend time in a room with them, the inability to find genuine relation is at once frustrating and terrifying. I wonder if it will ever be overcome or will it be our doom? Some assert intelligence of a human sort is a defect--leading to the species own annihilation. That fact that people are so convinced of their ideas is precisely how every destructive historical event has occurred, and yet we can't seem to untangle from misguided thoughts and deeds that assert dominance over others and claims it's their right.

 

[Contumacious]

Elected representatives of both major political parties in the US depend on the richest 1% of citizens to fund their campaigns and retirements, and the richest 1% depend on corporations to supply their incomes. IMHO, a Second Constitutional Convention would be required to limit corporate influence, but not if Republicans AND Democrats controlled the convention.

Yeah man, I agree.

A 2nd Constitutional Convention is necessary to give more power to the Parasitic Faction, make Karl Marx a Founding Father and officially change our name to the United States of Somalia.

Yep, that's the ticket.

.

 

[bripat9643]

The biggest advantage I've found over the past four years that I've been posting here comes from exchanging political and economic opinions with individuals I probably couldn't spend five minutes with in the same room; too many of us waste our time communicating solely with those we agree with. Hopefully, future events will give all of us more reason to find common ground instead of simply repeating our historical biases.

That inability to spend time in a room with them, the inability to find genuine relation is at once frustrating and terrifying. I wonder if it will ever be overcome or will it be our doom? Some assert intelligence of a human sort is a defect--leading to the species own annihilation. That fact that people are so convinced of their ideas is precisely how every destructive historical event has occurred, and yet we can't seem to untangle from misguided thoughts and deeds that assert dominance over others and claims it's their right.

Our doom will come when a sufficient number of numskulls fall for the bullshit you're spewing. Anyone who "finds common ground" with you is just hastening the fall.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The delusions on display in this forum are truly awe inspiring for their total lack of connection with reality.

Corporations don't control government. The don't own government. The later claim is utterly meaningless. Politicians shake down corporations for cash. The money corporations donate to Washington is ransom money. Fascism is where corporations are mere extensions of the government. They don't control the government.

I could go on an on pointing out all the idiocies in your post, but there are only so many hours in the day.

 

[gnarlylove]

bri, what is the shit I'm spewing? That people should not be treated as objects to be discarded on the side of the road of corporate capitalism? You are a fascist who wishes I was in jail for believing that people should not be mistreated. You are incredible.

 

[bripat9643]

bri, what is the shit I'm spewing? That people should not be treated as objects to be discarded on the side of the road of corporate capitalism? You are a fascist who wishes I was in jail for believing that people should not be mistreated. You are incredible.

Your idea of being "mistreated" means getting paid what their skills are worth. You want to put everyone on welfare and have government run everyone's life. You think capitalism is responsible for the fact that people have to work for a living. That's why it's so cruel. Your ideals wouldn't even work in La-La Land, let alone here on Earth.

 

[gnarlylove]

That's a non-sequitur. I don't believe most should be dependent on gov't. They should be given opportunities to sustain themselves (in other words earn their living), but that will not happen under corporate capitalism. corporate capitalism functions in a way that gobbles up all property and charges everyone a fee for living. Those who don't pay don't matter. But is it there fault they can't pay? No. They were born into those circumstances. There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. Those are decisions made by people. Your charge of fantasy is just false. You have no idea that other governments and populations have different laws and treat their citizens differently, and they do it in a way that makes the people happier. Saying its fantasy and la la land to imagine a few different policies shows how addicted to your fantasy is that America is the only possible way.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/christo...e-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a non-sequitur. I don't believe most should be dependent on gov't. They should be given opportunities to sustain themselves (in other words earn their living), but that will not happen under corporate capitalism. corporate capitalism functions in a way that gobbles up all property and charges everyone a fee for living. There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. Those are decisions made by people. Your charge of fantasy is just false. You have no idea that other governments and populations have different laws and treat their citizens differently, and they do it in a way that makes the people happier.The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013 - Forbes

There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery.

You're right, people with no marketable skills, like you, should just be given stuff, to make things fair.

 

[gnarlylove]

There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery.

You're right, people with no marketable skills, like you, should just be given stuff, to make things fair.

I don't think that. But I know you don't care about that, it gets in the way of your gut reaction.

Your evaluation of human beings is based on nothing. No person is inherently more valuable than others. Only upon exploration and acquisition do people come to possess marketable skills. But that isn't determined by innate abilities, it is determined by what the parents can afford for the child, which has nothing to do with the value of the child. Often the parent's ability to afford for the child hinges upon the wealth of the previous generations and yet you think a person who doesn't have a job doesn't have one because they are not marketable. Ever wonder why there is unemployment? It's a result of too few jobs for the amount of people. Make sense? So why do you think it's appropriate to blame people for poverty when they aren't inherently less valuable, only that they were born to the wrong family and the wrong location.

I appreciate your blatant dis-respect. You have literally no clue what I do, who I am and what skills I have. You are about as apprehensive as a sloth but you mouth off like what you say has any meaning. I don't expect you to produce meaningful posts so this latest one comes of no surprise.

 

[elektra]

There is no bigger expense in life than the private property I am forced to give to the government, my labor in the form of taxation. Not just taxation but also fees, fees hidden into everything. The government rules and dictates, that is what and where lawyers are created, through rules and regulations in which lawyers are the arbitrators.

Corporations exist as created and defined by our government, in the form of laws, codes, regulations, etc..

Corporations are nothing more than the legal definition that lawyers and judges countless argue and define.

Capitalism seems a gross misuse of the word as used to describe our government dictates to private citizens.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery.

You're right, people with no marketable skills, like you, should just be given stuff, to make things fair.

I don't think that. But I know you don't care about that, it gets in the way of your gut reaction.

Your evaluation of human beings is based on nothing. No person is inherently more valuable than others. Only upon exploration and acquisition do people come to possess marketable skills. But that isn't determined by innate abilities, it is determined by what the parents can afford for the child, which has nothing to do with the value of the child. Often the parent's ability to afford for the child hinges upon the wealth of the previous generations and yet you think a person who doesn't have a job doesn't have one because they are not marketable. Ever wonder why there is unemployment? It's a result of too few jobs for the amount of people. Make sense? So why do you think it's appropriate to blame people for poverty when they aren't inherently less valuable, only that they were born to the wrong family and the wrong location.

I appreciate your blatant dis-respect. You have literally no clue what I do, who I am and what skills I have. You are about as apprehensive as a sloth but you mouth off like what you say has any meaning. I don't expect you to produce meaningful posts so this latest one comes of no surprise.

No person is inherently more valuable than others.

You're correct and I've never claimed otherwise.

The work some people do, or don't do, does have different values.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Not to its victims:

"On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Western tribes."

Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My claim was the textile industry depended on slave labor and high tariffs during its formation which it did. Capitalism thrives in climates of free labor and government protected monopolies.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

You wouldn't recognize real evidence; were you homeschooled?

"The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers’ aluminum.

"Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses.

"Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits.

"They load in one warehouse.

"They unload in another.

"And then they do it again.

"This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

"The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal.

"It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.

"Tyler Clay, a forklift driver who worked at the Goldman warehouses until early this year, called the process 'a merry-go-round of metal.'

"Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum can’s purchase price can be traced back to the strategy.

"But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year — and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding — and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=2&

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Anyone paying you $18 a year is pissing his money away.
Buy a few more books (you won't appear homeschooled)

"Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

"The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:

"U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
Savings bonds
Government Account Series (GAS)
State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.
Amortized discount or premium on bills, notes and bonds is also included in the monthly interest expense.

"The fiscal year represents the total interest expense on the Debt Outstanding for a given fiscal year. This includes the months of October through September. View current month details (XLS Format, File size 188KB, uploaded 04/04/2014).

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

 

[georgephillip]

Elected representatives of both major political parties in the US depend on the richest 1% of citizens to fund their campaigns and retirements, and the richest 1% depend on corporations to supply their incomes. IMHO, a Second Constitutional Convention would be required to limit corporate influence, but not if Republicans AND Democrats controlled the convention.

Yeah man, I agree.

A 2nd Constitutional Convention is necessary to give more power to the Parasitic Faction, make Karl Marx a Founding Father and officially change our name to the United States of Somalia.

Yep, that's the ticket.

.

Or maybe both extremes of the political spectrum are collectivist?

"On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the
conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example,
the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend
totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and
individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late
nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to
gain an unchallenged monopoly was to 'go political' and make society go to work for the
monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was
detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.1 Howe, by the way,
is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution."

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

 

[georgephillip]

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

The delusions on display in this forum are truly awe inspiring for their total lack of connection with reality.

Corporations don't control government. The don't own government. The later claim is utterly meaningless. Politicians shake down corporations for cash. The money corporations donate to Washington is ransom money. Fascism is where corporations are mere extensions of the government. They don't control the government.

I could go on an on pointing out all the idiocies in your post, but there are only so many hours in the day.

Corporations generate the private fortunes that buy and sell Republicans AND Democrats like toilet paper; the solution is to tax the rich citizens (corporate and natural) instead of borrowing from them.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not to its victims:

"On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Western tribes."

Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My claim was the textile industry depended on slave labor and high tariffs during its formation which it did. Capitalism thrives in climates of free labor and government protected monopolies.

What does that have to do with the textile industry?

BTW, the greatest slaughters of the Indians were perpetrated by General Sherman. You know, they guy Lincoln promoted to general and put in charge of laying waste to the Confederate states. Lincoln is one of your heroes, isn't he?

 

[Andylusion]

No person is inherently more valuable than others.

But that isn't determined by innate abilities, it is determined by what the parents can afford for the child, which has nothing to do with the value of the child.

I have problems with both of these claims, and since the rest of your argument hinges on these two statements... let's deal with these first.

Is no person inherently more valuable than another?

Well that depends on what the context of "value" is. Are you talking about basic human value?

Then the answer is yes, you are correct. We're all equally human, and have equal value to G-d, and under the law.

This is why if a homeless person is murdered, they still investigate, and if they find out who killed him, that individual is put to death, or imprisoned.

But Human value, and Market value, are two different things. If you doubt that, tell your auto mechanic that you are only going to pay him $35 because that's how much you pay the guy who mows your lawn, and since they both have the same value as a human being, that he shouldn't get paid more.

Or better still, if you have a brain tumor, go to the brain surgeon and tell him that you are only going to pay him a few hundred bucks, because he has no more value as a human than your auto mechanic, and you only pay him a few hundred.

In either case, both of them will laugh at you, and neither you, nor your car will get fixed.

There is a difference in market value. No difference in human value, but a massive market value difference.

I suspect that you likely earn more money than myself. It has never occurred to me that this indicates you have more value as a human. You have more value in the market, but not as human. If both of us are robbed, the police will come and help both of us. But that doesn't mean my employer pays me the same as yours pays you, because you likely have higher value skills than I do.

Now is that market value.... not tied to innate ability?

I find this crazy. So you are suggesting that Forest Gump (any real life equivalent), had the exact same potential as Thomas Sowell, Paul Krugman, or Milton Friedman?

That's nutz. So anyone can be Michael Jordan, and innate ability has nothing to do with it?

And not even limiting this to physical attributes either. Obviously someone that is 4'11" is not going to make it to the NBA. Innate ability is a factor there... .but it's not even just that. There were MANY NBA players that had the same height and strength of Michael Jordan, even on the very teams that Michael Jordan played on, there were players... and they had the exact same coach. Yet Michael Jordan out played even those on his own team, routinely.

There is innate ability. It's not all down to getting the best training. Again Jordan had the same coach as the rest of his team. Why didn't they all play exactly as good as him?

Lastly, is it all about the education....?

Ugh..... gah..... You would think that urban legends at some point would die out. Out of all the topis on this forum, there are dozens that can be debated until the end of time without a conclusion.

But then you have things like this, that have been completely proven false over and over and over, and yet it still never dies.

Way back in the late 1960s, we had numerous ivy league institutions, based on this theory, allow so-called "under privileged" students come and be educated at Ivy League universities for free.

Now in theory the only reason why students do well is because their parents can afford it, then by allowing students in whose parents could not afford it, they should be able to do just as well.

Instead... they failed. They failed out. The theory proved wrong.

On the opposite side of this....
The Ivy League Earnings Myth - US News

Here, however, is what was explosive: Dale and Krueger concluded that students, who were accepted into elite schools, but went to less selective institutions, earned salaries just as high as Ivy League grads. For instance, if a teenager gained entry to Harvard, but ended up attending Penn State, his or her salary prospects would be the same.

In the pair's newest study, the findings are even more amazing. Applicants, who shared similar high SAT scores with Ivy League applicants could have been rejected from the elite schools that they applied to and yet they still enjoyed similar average salaries as the graduates from elite schools

These two economists, did two seperate reports.

In the first report, they traced students who applied for, and were accepted at Ivy League schools, but made the choice to instead go to State schools.

Those students had the exact same average earnings, as their Ivy League contemporaries.

In the second report, they additionally traced students who had the exact same SAT scores, but were rejected from Ivy League schools.

Those student ALSO had the exact same average earnings, as their Ivy League contemporaries.

What's the clear point? It's the ability of the student. A good student at a low-buck State school, will fair just as well as a good student at the Ivy League high-buck school.

It's the student. Not the school. Not the money.

I had to laugh today at work, because I just saw your post on my way out the door, and on my Ipod, was EconTalk Podcast, and the topic this week was....... College, Signaling and Human Capital, which is exactly this point here.

The whole podcast was about how it's not about the quality of the education so much, as the quality of the students.

Bryan Caplan on College, Signaling and Human Capital | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

I would encourage you to get the podcast, if you are brave enough to listen to alternative evidence to the thoroughly disproved theory of it's all about education money.

Bryan Caplan is coming out with a book on this topic, but it's not out yet, so I can't link you to that.

But for heaven sakes, this urban legend has to die at some point. It's getting stupid.