Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[auditor0007]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

While you are correct about the income disparity increasing, you make a very big mistake by believing that we should have no poor and that everyone should be doing exceptionally well. Here is the truth about all societies. They tolerate their poor. They may try to help them to a certain extent, but unless the entire society is poor, nobody gives a rats ass. What the majority of people care about are themselves, and that boils down to the middle class. When the middle class eventually figures out how bad it has been getting screwed over, watch out, because all those filthy rich people will begin becoming a bit poorer themselves. We are currently at a point where things must get a little bit worse for the middle class before the brainwashing wears off.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.

Does GMO mean modified by humans?

Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
Do you need examples?

Do us a favor and think before you type.

Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.

I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.

Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.

The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?

Did Monsanto do it?

 

[georgephillip]

Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings. One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million. In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht. Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.

There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires. But the rules have been drastically softened over the years. If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.

Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here. You may not remove it. And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.

My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.

There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.

The way it would function in reality is to drive all investment out of this country and reduce our standard of living to something resembling the standard of living in Somalia. It's amazing to me that any educated person could be stupid enough to believe a plan like that would actually work.

Good riddance>Expatriation Tax

 

[KNB]

Hemp seed is healthier than corn and hasn't been genetically modified by Monsanto. Hemp can also make more ethanol than corn. And hemp stalks can make biodegradable plastic. And hemp makes four times more paper per acre than trees.

And more people can grow Cannabis than corn, meaning more jobs.

 

[georgephillip]

What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.

CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.

Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?

You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.

No it doesnt imply anythng of the sort. Unless you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have manipulated the market for about 50 years.

Ask George about manipulation of the market. Goldman sachs knows how to do this with aluminum. High frequency trading is market manipulation and preferred calls are legalized cheating--getting information sometimes weeks before it is public. See Raj Rajaratnam but everyone on Wall St knows.

Warren Buffet insists on being taxed more than current rates out of principle.

And how did Bill Gates get his wealth? HA! The government had virtually funded 100% of these unmarketable things called computers. As the US reached Japan's computing ability in the 80s, Gates was on the scene. He was that slithering snake that has all the work done for him and gets to claim its rewards as all the publics funds that developed computers was turned into private hands, we saw the profits. The internet was a success and we know the rest of the story.



I just think you need to be more critical than stupidly announcing "I think we should have lots of billionaires." This clearly did not arise from any meaningful thought but instead a trite little retort to a comment suggesting life is not solely about money.

Billionaires (and other parasites) would not exist without government spending:

"The reality is that there is massive state intervention in the productive economy and the free-trade agreements are anything but free-trade agreements.

"That should be obvious.

"Just to take one example: The information technology (IT) revolution, which is driving the economy, that was based on decades of work in effectively the state sector - hard, costly, creative work substantially in the state sector, no consumer choice at all, there was entrepreneurial initiative but it was largely limited to getting government grants or bailouts or procurement..."

"After a long period - decades in fact - of hard, creative work, the primary research and development, the results are handed over to private enterprise for commercialisation and profit.

"That's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and so on."

Noam Chomsky: What I'd like to see on front pages of newspapers - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

 

[Mustang]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

If the wealthy benefit MORE than the poor, that doesn't mean that the poor don't benefit from capitalism. Complaining that the rich benefit "more" is kind of akin to candy-ass pussy whining. If the wealthy do even better when capitalism is humming along why should we get all jealous as long as the rest of us are deriving significant benefits, too?

Rising tides and all.

 

[gnarlylove]

Now that's one well reasoned reply.

Can you tell me where class warfare was mentioned? Oh where was hate towards a group too? Oh, neither of your assertions have any relevancy to the matter at hand (in other words are strawman arguments)? To be expected when a child doesn't hear what it wants; adults assess claims based on their merit.

Class warfare is all your post was about. Do you think because you didn't use that phrase that you fooled anyone? Your hatred of success couldn't be more obvious.

I was not aware of what I believe so please continue telling me what I believe.

Maybe you're not capable of distinguishing between disagreement and hatred. You're train of thought says "when I disagree with something I also hate it; when I am in conflict with someone I wish to incarcerate them."

Many people do not operate according to this principled hatred of dissent, including myself. But it's clear from your desire to imprison dissenters (as you've mentioned in plenty of posts) that deep hatred follows dissent out of necessity. Thus your false assertion regarding how I view success makes sense to you but like I said, is false. I implore you to use evidence for once and show me where I hate success. Please keep in mind hate is not synonymous with dissent.

I'd address this further but you have yet to make a post out of your thousands that shows you're capable of respectful dialogue.

 

[bripat9643]

There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.

The way it would function in reality is to drive all investment out of this country and reduce our standard of living to something resembling the standard of living in Somalia. It's amazing to me that any educated person could be stupid enough to believe a plan like that would actually work.

Good riddance>Expatriation Tax

You would cut off your nose to spite your own face. Your arguing to send this country into a stone age.

 

[gnarlylove]

Does GMO mean modified by humans?

Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
Do you need examples?

Do us a favor and think before you type.

Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.

I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.

Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.

The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?

Did Monsanto do it?

You must be far too strung out on drugs to care about making a coherent point.

Let me ask again, can you tell the difference between knowing what you're eating and not eating?

Once you can tell, let me know and I'll give you a sticker to put on your folder.

 

[bripat9643]

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

On a percentage basis, the poor benefit the most. They have cars, houses, flat screen TVs, cell phone and the best medical care in the world. Before capitalism, they starved, died of numerous diseases, had to undergo surgery and dental work without anesthesia, had no central hearing or plumping, no telephone, television, radio, computer, dishwasher, refrigerator, gas stove, air conditioning, electric lights, automobile, etc., etc,. etc..

 

[georgephillip]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

While you are correct about the income disparity increasing, you make a very big mistake by believing that we should have no poor and that everyone should be doing exceptionally well. Here is the truth about all societies. They tolerate their poor. They may try to help them to a certain extent, but unless the entire society is poor, nobody gives a rats ass. What the majority of people care about are themselves, and that boils down to the middle class. When the middle class eventually figures out how bad it has been getting screwed over, watch out, because all those filthy rich people will begin becoming a bit poorer themselves. We are currently at a point where things must get a little bit worse for the middle class before the brainwashing wears off.

Many in the US middle class may be confused about their relative standing in the world:

"Our middle class is falling further and further behind in comparison to the rest of the world. We keep hearing that America is number one. Well, when it comes to middle-class wealth, we're number 27."

27 with a bullet.
Watch out Ukraine.

Les Leopold: Big Lie: America Doesn't Have #1 Richest Middle-Class in the World... We're Ranked 27th!

 

[MikeK]

I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:

I agree.

In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist. I am anti laissez-faire (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism. I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of Reaganomics, and the progression of deregulation it initiated.

History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis

Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below. Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2. In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:

I agree.

In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist. I am anti laissez-faire (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism. I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of Reaganomics, and the progression of deregulation it initiated.

History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis

Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below. Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2. In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.

In other words, you're a fascist. However, the program you propose would lead immediately to communism and mass starvation.

 

[gnarlylove]

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.

If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.

What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.

I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.

 

[gnarlylove]

I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:

I agree.

In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist. I am anti laissez-faire (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism. I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of Reaganomics, and the progression of deregulation it initiated.

History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis

Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below. Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2. In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.

In other words, you're a fascist. However, the program you propose would lead immediately to communism and mass starvation.

It's funny to hear a real live fascist like yourself call someone a fascist in a pejorative sense. Also, it's funny to hear someone say black and white are the same thing, like fascism and communism. These two political systems are literally on opposite ends of the spectrum of politics.

NB: The slavery/freedom bit is not coherent but this was the simplest diagram I could find for such a person as bri.

 

[Mustang]

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefited the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.

There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.

If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.

What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.

I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.

Back it up with some facts or shut the fuck up. Your wild imagination makes you look like a loon.
Of course some people choose to live off the grid. It is their choice. Similarly some people choose to be homeless.

 

[The Rabbi]

Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefited the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.

Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.

You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.

There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.

Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.