Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[francoHFW]

This started in the early 80's in the USA and the UK because that's when pander to the rich voodoo tax rates started under Reagan and Thatcher. They've stayed basically the same in those most savage capitalist countries. That's what needs to change, and it's now started, thank god. O-care also helps. At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, and the top 2 percent at least triples their wealth while the rest and the country go to hell. Vote DEM, stupid.

At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees,

Show me.

Connie Reich
Bill Mahers new rule regarding the Duck Dynasty fisaco:

Using the Duck Dynasty fiasco as his analogy for what Republicans have done to this country with smoke and mirrors, he had some advice.

“And finally, a resolution I have been asking America to make for a long time,” he said. “Be more cynical. Be less easily fooled. Case in point, all the people that are fans of these guys, heroes to all the rural heartland traditional values gun nuts out there. Except here is what we recently found out these guys really look like before they got their TV show, preppy assholes at the golf club wearing Tommy Bahama. That’s right. It is all an act, fat cats pretending to be just folks. And you fell for it. Take a hint, Tea Partiers. This is what the Republican Party is always doing to you.”

Americans should heed his comment. It is okay to be fooled once. It is okay that one has been misled. When one is informed and refuses to see the light, then that becomes willful ignorance.

OH, SORRY hERE'S THE LINK TO STATS

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[auditor0007]

Want income equality, move to Haiti!

Not very many people want income equality. What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward. When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.

More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up. When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates. When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.

 

[The Rabbi]

Want income equality, move to Haiti!

Not very many people want income equality. What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward. When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.

More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up. When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates. When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.

Typically you get it exactly wrong.
If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality. Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now. Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending. This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.

 

[bayoubill]

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."

If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...

read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...

and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...

 

[The Rabbi]

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."

If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...

read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...

and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...

He's a certified anti-Semite. That should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[bayoubill]

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."

If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...

read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...

and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...

He's a certified anti-Semite. That should tell you everything you need to know.

ummm... no... that claim actually tells me nothing about him...

but mebbe a li'l bit about you...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity

Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works. Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.

You are confusing "opportunity" with "results." There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have. They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want." You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site. Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."

Despite those among the poor who choose not to take opportunities provided to them, like public education, the American taxpayer has done a very good job of "carrying" them compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Geaux4it]

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."

And this is a problem?

-Geaux

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site

Do you find the following content untruthful?

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.

Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

You're right, some of the other countries poor only wished they lived as well as those within the United States. That's putting wealth inequality in it's proper perspective. Our nation is so technology hungry and materialistic, we have no real comprehension of what it truly means to be among the poor and destitute.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.

It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.

It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
Best congress money can buy.

So do those among the AFL-CIO

 

[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."

If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...

read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...

and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...

How many basic Economic text books have you read?

 

[P@triot]

Want income equality, move to Haiti!

Not very many people want income equality. What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward. When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.

More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up. When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates. When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.

Oh the irony....

Our economy is struggling exactly because of this profoundly ignorant "bottom up" mentality. Poor people do not create jobs. Poor people do not have disposable income. Poor people do not pay taxes.

As long as Dumbocrats continue to believe that we should punish success and reward failure, we will end up with failure. It's simply astounding how stupid you people are....

 

[georgephillip]

Want income equality, move to Haiti!

Not very many people want income equality. What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward. When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.

More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up. When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates. When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.

Typically you get it exactly wrong.
If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality. Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now. Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending. This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.

Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
No demand.
No investment.

 

[Iceweasel]

Capitalism as an economic system was more about taking power away from those who owned the means of production by giving the power of government over to the people. The default is not a clear separation of government and those who own the means of production. When this country was founded it was only the land owners voting.

Your history and the way of the world is backwards.

Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.

As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.

 

[Bombur]

Capitalism as an economic system was more about taking power away from those who owned the means of production by giving the power of government over to the people. The default is not a clear separation of government and those who own the means of production. When this country was founded it was only the land owners voting.

Your history and the way of the world is backwards.

Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.

As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.

Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.

There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.

As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future.

On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.

 

[Bombur]

And the better the economy gets the better the middle class gets.

That's the way it works.

Last I checked income inequality was getting worse and worse. Let me guess you blame government and ignore the imperfections in our markets.

Can you articulate even one "imperfection" in our market? The fact that you don't speaks volumes...

Inelasticity with regards to high and low end salaries, manipulation of currency by foreign nations and powers, inelasticity of demand in our healthcare markets (on multiple levels), inelasticity with regards to higher education, a tax code that favors certain classes over others, a government that is for sale, State governments who are given little choice but to pay businesses to invest in their state, failures with regards to regulation, distribution of healthcare costs on our labor market compared to other countries.... do you want more?

 

[Bombur]

"Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more"

Ten Years After - I'd Love to Change the World Lyrics | SongMeanings

And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.

Because the Marxist asshats like you and Obama are taxing the fuck out of the middle class with your socialism - taxing them right into poverty (which, lets be honest, is what you two asshats want so that everyone is "equal" - equal in poverty).

God Almighty, Dumbocrats create the problem with their ignorant share-the-wealth socialism and then cry the loudest about the problem that they created!

I think we should shift the tax burden off the middle class.

That is hardly the only reason our nation has problems with inequality though.

I don't really consider myself a member of any party. I do think the problem of our age is an unhealthy labor market.

 

[bripat9643]

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."

If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...

read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...

and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...

How many basic Economic text books have you read?

It's obvious that you've never read one because you don't understand the most basic principles of economics.

 

[bripat9643]

Not very many people want income equality. What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward. When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.

More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up. When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates. When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.

Typically you get it exactly wrong.
If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality. Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now. Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending. This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.

Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
No demand.
No investment.

What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.

You've got the cart before the horse. Economies don't happen from thin air or grow from government trees.

There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.

That makes no sense. As the business climate does better the more they have to pay the worker. Or he goes elsewhere. It wasn't long ago companies were desperate for workers and had to offer decent incentives besides good pay.

As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future.

I've been a business owner for twenty seven years. How about you? What land owner am I following? I payed mine off decades ahead of sceadule while the housing risis was underway. it sounds like you have insults instead of facts or real world experience. Which is liberalism 101.

On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.

So billionaires prefer a free market approach? Is it possible they know more about economics or your poly-sci professor than you do? Those that can't do, teach.