Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Doubletap]

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.

Absolutely.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Godless , totslitarian, communists to the rescue !!! Lol

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

Absolutely.

Lots of people disagree with this laconic, even crass (mis)understanding. Poor people have undergone a far more nuanced change than simply "better" under glorious capitalism

Serfs were at least considered to have a right to be in their place, albeit a rotten place. Under capitalism profits trump human life and so those who can't pay don't get access since under capitalism water, land and existence are owned by those above who may not feel generous to distribute. Indeed, beggars have never been so many as under capitalism. I can enumerate a million particularities that have arisen out of capitalism that were never a concern among the before just 200 years ago. No one denies capitalism has changed how the poor are viewed (as despicable dirt) despite every instance pointing to institutional dysfunction and profit resulting in joblessness, dismantling of communities throughout the heartland, the rust belt, no money=no opportunities, this leads to a desire to escape through drugs and consumption providing short term respite from an otherwise dismal world, day in and day out. I fucking cannot stand white males, and I'm the whitest...god fucking damn our stupidity, narrow points of view arrogance and ignorance! We know nothing and yet claim to know everything!

Hells bells, who's to say that capitalism has brought genuine improvement when being poor literally means you are many times more likely to get cancer, terminal illness, heart disease, many many other health hazards including dying much earlier (Pine Ridge is 48) simply for being poor. And what's the pay off? Consumption? A fridge? Is that the supposed grand prize of capitalism for the poor? The material gain is hardly an adequate reward for being sacrificed on the alter of poverty. The constant debt, harassment to stay ahead on payments that always overwhelm is not some heavenly assent by the poor. It's giving them more responsibility to pay the rich!

Not to mention capitalism undermines the most important feature of life: the spiritual/creative aspect which is undermined through working 1/3 of life, being told what to do. Few supposed religious or christian folk have any genuine connection to compassion taught in all religions or respecting every moment as an end in itself, as precious, also widely taught and widely dismissed though infinitely important to leading an excellent life.

 

[gipper]

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.

Absolutely.

Lots of people disagree with this laconic, even crass (mis)understanding. Poor people have undergone a far more nuanced change than simply "better" under glorious capitalism

Serfs were at least considered to have a right to be in their place, albeit a rotten place. Under capitalism profits trump human life and so those who can't pay don't get access since under capitalism water, land and existence are owned by those above who may not feel generous to distribute. Indeed, beggars have never been so many as under capitalism. I can enumerate a million particularities that have arisen out of capitalism that were never a concern among the before just 200 years ago. No one denies capitalism has changed how the poor are viewed (as despicable dirt) despite every instance pointing to institutional dysfunction and profit resulting in joblessness, dismantling of communities throughout the heartland, the rust belt, no money=no opportunities, this leads to a desire to escape through drugs and consumption providing short term respite from an otherwise dismal world, day in and day out. I fucking cannot stand white males, and I'm the whitest...god fucking damn our stupidity, narrow points of view arrogance and ignorance! We know nothing and yet claim to know everything!

Hells bells, who's to say that capitalism has brought genuine improvement when being poor literally means you are many times more likely to get cancer, terminal illness, heart disease, many many other health hazards including dying much earlier (Pine Ridge is 48) simply for being poor. And what's the pay off? Consumption? A fridge? Is that the supposed grand prize of capitalism for the poor? The material gain is hardly an adequate reward for being sacrificed on the alter of poverty. The constant debt, harassment to stay ahead on payments that always overwhelm is not some heavenly assent by the poor. It's giving them more responsibility to pay the rich!

Not to mention capitalism undermines the most important feature of life: the spiritual/creative aspect which is undermined through working 1/3 of life, being told what to do. Few supposed religious or christian folk have any genuine connection to compassion taught in all religions or respecting every moment as an end in itself, as precious, also widely taught and widely dismissed though infinitely important to leading an excellent life.

Yeah...the serfs had it better than today's poor in the USA....

And you hate white males....sexist and racist are you?

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

let alone social justice.

Social justice? LOL!

We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?

For justice!!!

 

[bripat9643]

when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.

No, sorry. That's simply not true. People own more wealth, because they invest instead of consume.

I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them. A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars. Four times as much as the $2.7 Million that your link says that the top 1% get from inheritance.

If the reason the rich are rich, is because they got $2.7 Million in inheritance, then this girl with $10 Million should be in the top 0.1% of the 1%. Right?

Instead, she's broke. 8 or 9 years later, she's got no car, works a part time job, and rides the bus.

Again, Steve Jobs had $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, which became a block buster movie producer, and sold it for $5 Billion.

What part of this is hard to grasp? The lady is broke because she consumed her money. Steve Jobs became rich because he invested his money.

Again, Pinball People, verses the Beer Pong People.

Warren Buffet when he was in high school, saved money from a paper route to buy a Pinball Machine, which he placed in a local business where it earned more money.

Most people in high school when I was there, were buying kegs of beer, going to someone's home whose parents were not there, and playing beer pong all night long.

Buffet was investing his money. Other people were consuming their money.

Buffet, and the vast majority of the wealthy, are not wealthy by some magical accident. They are not wealthy because they were super brilliant and smart. They are not wealthy because some politician bestowed the wealth on them.

They are wealthy simply because they invested instead of consumed.

I just got done reading a book, which talked about a project pushed by the World Bank to increase the wealth of poor African people. They encouraged micro-lending, funded by the world bank. The intention was that they simply needed capital to start their own businesses and build the economy. The Africans instead used the money to buy cigarettes and locally made type of beer. Nearly all of them defaulted and the program collasped in the first round of loans.

The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, is because one consumes and one invests.

Are there examples of socialized government created super wealthy? Absolutely. In china prior to 1978, the only wealthy people, were the CEOs of the government companies, who were only appointed to their position by the Communist party, while the poor and impoverished were earning $2 a day.

I agree with you on that. But that is a tiny fraction of the wealthy. 80% of millionaires, earned their wealth. They are first generation rich.

Who wrote that book on Africa?

"Since the inception of the Microfinance Program in 1999, THP has grown the loan portfolio to approximately US$2.9 million across Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda. By the end of 2011, 45,000 partners had saved a total of US$1.6 million! Perhaps most importantly, 28 Rural Banks have graduated to operate as their own independent, community-owned and women-led rural financial institutions."

The World Bank is one of the key institutions for transferring wealth from poor to rich countries so it's hardly surprising when one of their "microfinance" projects fails.

Do you have a link for your 80% of millionaires claim?

Microfinance Program in Africa | The Hunger Project

$2.9 million across 8 different countries? Imagine the stunning economic impact!

 

[bripat9643]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

]"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

Then why aren't all the descendants of Commodore Vanderbilt billionaires? You know his grand children all died penniless, don't you? That's just one of the bogus assumptions made by this Marxist fool Piketty. Another one is the belief that capitalism produces slow economic growth. Big government is the reason economic growth slows, not capitalism.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

Wage laborers typical don't save their money, so they don't tend to amass wealth. What does it mean to "dominate?" Small amounts of money invested can grow just as fast as large amounts.

The more I learn about this Piketty character, the less impressed I am. He appears to be good at inventing slogans and talking points for liberals to spew, but it doesn't take much inspection to determine that they're utterly bogus.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

Where is the evidence that some level of inequality is "unsustainable?" If it can't be sustained, then it will end, so what's the problem?

And, yes, "the rising wealth of the 1% is" is nothing but rhetoric. It can easily be deconstructed in a few sentences.

 

[Geaux4it]

What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average

-Geaux

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

let alone social justice.

Social justice? LOL!

We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?

For justice!!!

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

let alone social justice.

Social justice? LOL!

We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?

For justice!!!

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??

Commie says what?

 

[bripat9643]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

BTW, whenever you put a qualifier in front of the word "justice" what you end up with is a synonym for "injustice."

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

let alone social justice.

Social justice? LOL!

We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?

For justice!!!

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??

What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.

]"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.

Then why aren't all the descendants of Commodore Vanderbilt billionaires? You know his grand children all died penniless, don't you? That's just one of the bogus assumptions made by this Marxist fool Piketty. Another one is the belief that capitalism produces slow economic growth. Big government is the reason economic growth slows, not capitalism.

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.

Wage laborers typical don't save their money, so they don't tend to amass wealth. What does it mean to "dominate?" Small amounts of money invested can grow just as fast as large amounts.

The more I learn about this Piketty character, the less impressed I am. He appears to be good at inventing slogans and talking points for liberals to spew, but it doesn't take much inspection to determine that they're utterly bogus.

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

Where is the evidence that some level of inequality is "unsustainable?" If it can't be sustained, then it will end, so what's the problem?

And, yes, "the rising wealth of the 1% is" is nothing but rhetoric. It can easily be deconstructed in a few sentences.

Feel free to prove that, if you can.
Capitalism produces levels of economic inequality that are "unsustainable" with democracy, not that corporate tools like you would care.

Piketty has proven capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation; too bad, your blinders prevent you from seeing that.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

 

[georgephillip]

What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average

-Geaux

Capitalism is producing levels of inequality that deny equality of opportunity in addition to poisoning democracy will boatloads of bribes.

"If he (Piketty) is right, the implications for capitalism are utterly negative: we face a low-growth capitalism, combined with high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility.

"If you are not born into wealth to start with, life, for even for the best educated, will be like Jane Eyre without Mr Rochester..."

"Piketty's Capital, unlike Marx's Capital, contains solutions possible on the terrain of capitalism itself: the 15% tax on capital, the 80% tax on high incomes, enforced transparency for all bank transactions, overt use of inflation to redistribute wealth downwards.

"He calls some of them 'utopian' and he is right.

"It is easier to imagine capitalism collapsing than the elite consenting to them."

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

 

[georgephillip]

let alone social justice.

Social justice? LOL!

We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?

For justice!!!

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??

What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?

They didn't earn it.
They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??

What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?

They didn't earn it.
They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.

You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!

Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.

Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!

How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??

 

[georgephillip]

What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?

They didn't earn it.
They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.

You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!

Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.

Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!

How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Oh, I'm impressed ... ROFLMFAO!!

 

[kaz]

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??

What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?

They didn't earn it.
They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.

"Corrupt politician" is redundant...

Did you ever consider that if government were smaller, there would be less for "corrupt politicians" to plunder? Think about it...

 

[kaz]

What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?

They didn't earn it.
They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.

You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!

Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.

Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!

How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??

I see you've meet George, you certainly pegged him quickly...