Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.

Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives.

At the expense of billions of lives? What are you talking about?

The introduction of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of crushing poverty in China and India in just the last few decades.

You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people.

How's communism work for the billions of people?

No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital

Groomed? By whom?

and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Every individual must have those interests? Before they're admitted to the club?
Explain all the rich people who have the opposite interests.

 

[gnarlylove]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

We tried capitalism. We had free markets as best as they will be. But what alawys happens when the markets are free is the fact there are winners. The market does not exist in perfect conditions of equal property distribution and such a condition could never exist given the variance of the value of land etc. So some start out with more land and resources (i.e. capital) than others. And as these folks do business, they aim to expand their capital.

So as free markets produced winners, those winners gained capital. Upon acquiring more capital than before, they though "hmm...I want even more capital." Thus investment came about. Over and over some became greater winners while others were left in the dust. As monopolies entered the scene, we tried to bust them up. That has largely been abandoned. Why is that?

Because as with all free market conditions, the winners eventually develop so much wealth that they can influence the state to protect their interests and expand their interests. In short, free markets lead to oligopolistic conditions out of necessity. Each time free markets are played out, winners result and these winners invest their money into ensuring economic policy benefits them. To do anything otherwise would literally be insane under capitalist dogma of pursuing rational self-interest. In fact, the investment theory of politics does a great job of explaining and predicting outcomes.

So stop defending some fairytale that you admit doesn't exist! Capitalism is a joke and does not exist and can never exist under real world conditions. Come to earth where people exist and start discussing ways to ensure human beings are not needlessly murdered or driven from their land through the expansion of capital (through war, mergers, privatization etc.).

 

[gnarlylove]

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

Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.

Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives.

At the expense of billions of lives? What are you talking about?

The introduction of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of crushing poverty in China and India in just the last few decades.

You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people.

How's communism work for the billions of people?

No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital

Groomed? By whom?

and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Every individual must have those interests? Before they're admitted to the club?
Explain all the rich people who have the opposite interests.

Just letting you know please don't reply to my posts. I simply do not value exchange with you since it took 10 pages for you to admit how right you were from page 1. You have no capacity for learning. You demonstrate that every post: you ask "groomed by whom?" I listed a book about this question and you fail to look for the answer to your question. Doesn't seem like you really ask questions to find answers. You ask them because youre bored or other mental neurosis so stop wasting your time and mine. If it gives your tiny brain with an infinitely large ego any closure "you are obviously right about everything and I am wrong about everything." If you reply to me again I'm simply going to block your boredom.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.

Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives.

At the expense of billions of lives? What are you talking about?

The introduction of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of crushing poverty in China and India in just the last few decades.

You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people.

How's communism work for the billions of people?

No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital

Groomed? By whom?

and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Every individual must have those interests? Before they're admitted to the club?
Explain all the rich people who have the opposite interests.

Just letting you know please don't reply to my posts. I simply do not value exchange with you since it took 10 pages for you to admit how right you were from page 1. You have no capacity for learning. You demonstrate that every post: you ask "groomed by whom?" I listed a book about this question and you fail to look for the answer to your question. Doesn't seem like you really ask questions to find answers. You ask them because youre bored or other mental neurosis so stop wasting your time and mine. If it gives your tiny brain with an infinitely large ego any closure "you are obviously right about everything and I am wrong about everything." If you reply to me again I'm simply going to block your boredom.

"you are obviously right about everything and I am wrong about everything."

Smartest thing you've ever posted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Life guarantees inequality.

Doesn't it?

Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.

Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.

What opportunities have you been denied?

Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.

All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.

 

[georgephillip]

Life guarantees inequality.

Doesn't it?

Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.

Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.

What opportunities have you been denied?

Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.

All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.

What opportunities have you been denied?

Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.

All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple. Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?

 

[dnsmith35]

What opportunities have you been denied?

Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.

All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple. Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?

The very idea that capitalism is the cause of inequality is horse puckey. Without capitalism everyone would be less wealth and the country would not have the prosperity to fund the social programs for the needy and disabled.

 

[georgephillip]

What opportunities have you been denied?

Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.

All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple. Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?

I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?

 

[Andylusion]

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple. Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?

I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?

In his example, that is exactly right. He's assuming some will invest right up until they die. And truth is, many do.

For most the payout comes when you are 65, or whenever you wish to retire.

So from age 25 to 65, you put in $350 a month.

By the time you are 65, assuming you never put in more than $350 a month, and assuming the market does what would be a terrible 7.5% yearly, you will end up with a Million dollars in investments.

At 65, we assume you retire, and start collecting from your retirement.

Your million dollars is still making (the assumed terrible) 7.5%, which is $75,000 a year. Can you retire on $75,000 a year? I should hope so.

Thus you can live out the rest of your life on $75,000 a year, without touching a penny of the principal. When you die, you will pass on $1 Million in investments to your child, or kids.

Now, assuming they follow in the wisdom of your footsteps, they too will be growing their retirement investment, which when you die will suddenly be boosted by a mere $1 Million.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.

Again, I'd suggest you are going to be one hell of a miserable person for the rest of your life.

There is no possible way to "insulate" government from money.... with the minor exception of simply electing honorable people. Of course in order to have honorable people, you have to have an honorable society, which requires morality, right and wrong, and a belief in something greater than the almighty "me".

But short of electing honorable people, you are never going to separate government and money. There has never been in all human history, in all cultures, in all governmental systems, a society in which government was not influenced by money.

I'm not suggesting that you should not desire such a thing, but I'd really like a space car that can fly to the moon and back, on leftover meatloaf. It's a nice thing to want, but getting bitter over it is a waste of my time. So is this happy utopian government sans money.

Further, I don't even know how you could even try and justify your stated beliefs, given I could easily list of dozens, possible hundreds of examples, even in the past decade, where if the wealthy people really controlled government, so many of the policies as they exist would not have happened.

 

[elektra]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.

Democracy? The United States is a Republic.

In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

You live in Democracy, where the mob can trample the rights of the individual?

 

[elektra]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

We tried capitalism. We had free markets as best as they will be. But what alawys happens when the markets are free is the fact there are winners. The market does not exist in perfect conditions of equal property distribution and such a condition could never exist given the variance of the value of land etc. So some start out with more land and resources (i.e. capital) than others. And as these folks do business, they aim to expand their capital.

So as free markets produced winners, those winners gained capital. Upon acquiring more capital than before, they though "hmm...I want even more capital." Thus investment came about. Over and over some became greater winners while others were left in the dust. As monopolies entered the scene, we tried to bust them up. That has largely been abandoned. Why is that?

Because as with all free market conditions, the winners eventually develop so much wealth that they can influence the state to protect their interests and expand their interests. In short, free markets lead to oligopolistic conditions out of necessity. Each time free markets are played out, winners result and these winners invest their money into ensuring economic policy benefits them. To do anything otherwise would literally be insane under capitalist dogma of pursuing rational self-interest. In fact, the investment theory of politics does a great job of explaining and predicting outcomes.

So stop defending some fairytale that you admit doesn't exist! Capitalism is a joke and does not exist and can never exist under real world conditions. Come to earth where people exist and start discussing ways to ensure human beings are not needlessly murdered or driven from their land through the expansion of capital (through war, mergers, privatization etc.).

We tried capitalism? When? Thus far you stated an ideological political rant, so forget the rant and actually tell us what you are talking about, tell us the history of capitalism, go ahead and tell us the era, the people, how they played the market and used the money as you stated, go ahead, I will hold my breath as a wait for this enlightening history of capitalism and the usa.

 

[f252863]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

We tried capitalism. We had free markets as best as they will be. But what alawys happens when the markets are free is the fact there are winners. The market does not exist in perfect conditions of equal property distribution and such a condition could never exist given the variance of the value of land etc. So some start out with more land and resources (i.e. capital) than others. And as these folks do business, they aim to expand their capital.

So as free markets produced winners, those winners gained capital. Upon acquiring more capital than before, they though "hmm...I want even more capital." Thus investment came about. Over and over some became greater winners while others were left in the dust. As monopolies entered the scene, we tried to bust them up. That has largely been abandoned. Why is that?

Because as with all free market conditions, the winners eventually develop so much wealth that they can influence the state to protect their interests and expand their interests. In short, free markets lead to oligopolistic conditions out of necessity. Each time free markets are played out, winners result and these winners invest their money into ensuring economic policy benefits them. To do anything otherwise would literally be insane under capitalist dogma of pursuing rational self-interest. In fact, the investment theory of politics does a great job of explaining and predicting outcomes.

So stop defending some fairytale that you admit doesn't exist! Capitalism is a joke and does not exist and can never exist under real world conditions. Come to earth where people exist and start discussing ways to ensure human beings are not needlessly murdered or driven from their land through the expansion of capital (through war, mergers, privatization etc.).

You are describing cronyism, not capitalism.

Name me one natural monopoly that was destructive to society. You can't. All harmful monopolies are government created. Isn't it absurd to say that regulated competition is fair?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple. Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?

I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?

That's the problem isn;t it? You're worried about your payout.

By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.

After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.

But the process has to start somewhere.

Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.

If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

A thread where nazis and communists agree. Try to tell me again that one is right wing and the other is left wing.

 

[Andylusion]

A thread where nazis and communists agree. Try to tell me again that one is right wing and the other is left wing.

Oh I know. All the way back in high school, when I was taught the political spectrum, even back then I remember thinking it didn't make sense. I couldn't find anything distinctive enough to make Nazis 'right-wing'. In nearly every possible political position, Nazis were exactly like Communists.

Even Stalin when he saw he wasn't going to beat Hitler in Germany, instructed his people to support Hitler over the Capitalists. What does that tell you?

Leftard: "Obviously Nazis are polar opposites from Communists, but similar to Capitalists, which is why Stalin supported them over the Capitalists"

The ONLY reason Communists and Nazis were not on the same side, is exclusively because Stalin and Hitler has mutually exclusive goals... namely the dominance of their own power.

It was hilarious, but the BBC did a documentary on "Russia's Far Right". You can look it up in the archives at BBC. They interviewed self proclaimed Neo-Nazis of Russia. They supported Hitler, supported Nazis, had swastikas, the whole deal.

They started asking them what they wanted, and it read out like the Communist manifesto. Solidarity of the working class, nationalization of major companies, elimination of the greedy oligarch class, return to Stalinism (literally said this).

I often wondered since this doc came out, did the reporters at the BBC ever think.... wait..... wait wait.... that sounds remarkably similar to left-wing beliefs....

 

[georgephillip]

I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.

Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple. Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?

The very idea that capitalism is the cause of inequality is horse puckey. Without capitalism everyone would be less wealth and the country would not have the prosperity to fund the social programs for the needy and disabled.

You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth and output in the economy, capitalism automatically generates the sort of wealth concentration that makes Democracy as significant as a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat.

Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality | On Point with Tom Ashbrook

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist.

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.

That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.

Again, I'd suggest you are going to be one hell of a miserable person for the rest of your life.

There is no possible way to "insulate" government from money.... with the minor exception of simply electing honorable people. Of course in order to have honorable people, you have to have an honorable society, which requires morality, right and wrong, and a belief in something greater than the almighty "me".

But short of electing honorable people, you are never going to separate government and money. There has never been in all human history, in all cultures, in all governmental systems, a society in which government was not influenced by money.

I'm not suggesting that you should not desire such a thing, but I'd really like a space car that can fly to the moon and back, on leftover meatloaf. It's a nice thing to want, but getting bitter over it is a waste of my time. So is this happy utopian government sans money.

Further, I don't even know how you could even try and justify your stated beliefs, given I could easily list of dozens, possible hundreds of examples, even in the past decade, where if the wealthy people really controlled government, so many of the policies as they exist would not have happened.

Public funding of elections would insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth. Think it can't happen? I knew racists who said the same thing about Jim Crow fifty years ago. And just like segregation, the current levels of inequality will make the US commitment to democracy and human rights laughing stocks world wide.