Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

Thanks for the link.

I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?

I did see this.

During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
drop since the Great Depression. Average real income for the top percentile
fell even faster (36.3 percent decline, Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,

I did find this:

"Scarborough said that under Obama, 95 percent of the economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent of earners..."

"Scarborough accurately reflected the findings of a much publicized report from Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist. Other studies confirm the overall trend in that report, although the disparities in gains between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else are not always as large as Scarborough said and depend on how you define income.

"Scarborough’s statement is accurate but in need of clarification. We rate it Mostly True."

If the rich didn't feel entitled to their income share, why didn't they donate ALL of it to CHARITY?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

The link mentioned neither feel nor entitled. Thanks for playing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

I BELIEVE IT.

under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES


to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations

ironic isnt it?

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.

Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it

 

[bonehead]

I BELIEVE IT.

under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES


to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations

ironic isnt it?

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.

Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

 

[Fishlore]

Concentration of capital, and its effect of increasing income equality is indeed an entropic tendency of the market/capitalist system. The reasons for this (advantages of scale, compound interest etc.) are purely economic and not due to greed or other moral factors. Nonetheless, it is true that left unregulated the system results in more and more of the nation's wealth being owned by fewer and fewer of the citizens.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The glory days of the American economy in the 1950s and 1960s saw "the Great Compression" a significant shrinking of the income gap caused by spectacularly rising incomes in the lower half of the income scale. This has happened before and it can happen again.

The accelerating mechanism of capital concentration had become spectacularly apparent by the end of the 19th century -- the Robber Barons and their trusts and all that. The necessary counterweight was devised by the Progressive Movement and successfully installed in the early 20th century.

The answer to excessive capital concentration -- trust busting, graduated income tax and the social safety net -- essentially taxes the ever-growing wealth of the large-scale capital holders and recycles the money through the economy in the form of government spending on health, education, welfare, infrastructure and the environment. We tried it and it worked. The need to govern capital concentration through progressive taxation has been successfully demonstrated for almost a century.

So, what happened? That's an easy one. The essence of so-called reaganomics is the dismantling of the progressive regulation of capital concentration. The Republican Party has been deregulating the progressive safeguards for over thirty years. The result has been not only steadily increasing concentration of capital but the devastation of America's manufacturing sector, skyrocketing rates of poverty and the collapse of our health and education systems.

Take the safety controls off the enormously powerful engine of America's market economy and what would you expect to happen? D'Oh!

 

[bonehead]

Concentration of capital, and its effect of increasing income equality is indeed an entropic tendency of the market/capitalist system. The reasons for this (advantages of scale, compound interest etc.) are purely economic and not due to greed or other moral factors. Nonetheless, it is true that left unregulated the system results in more and more of the nation's wealth being owned by fewer and fewer of the citizens.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The glory days of the American economy in the 1950s and 1960s saw "the Great Compression" a significant shrinking of the income gap caused by spectacularly rising incomes in the lower half of the income scale. This has happened before and it can happen again.

The accelerating mechanism of capital concentration had become spectacularly apparent by the end of the 19th century -- the Robber Barons and their trusts and all that. The necessary counterweight was devised by the Progressive Movement and successfully installed in the early 20th century.

The answer to excessive capital concentration -- trust busting, graduated income tax and the social safety net -- essentially taxes the ever-growing wealth of the large-scale capital holders and recycles the money through the economy in the form of government spending on health, education, welfare, infrastructure and the environment. We tried it and it worked. The need to govern capital concentration through progressive taxation has been successfully demonstrated for almost a century.

So, what happened? That's an easy one. The essence of so-called reaganomics is the dismantling of the progressive regulation of capital concentration. The Republican Party has been deregulating the progressive safeguards for over thirty years. The result has been not only steadily increasing concentration of capital but the devastation of America's manufacturing sector, skyrocketing rates of poverty and the collapse of our health and education systems.

Take the safety controls off the enormously powerful engine of America's market economy and what would you expect to happen? D'Oh!

well, finally we have someone willing to state the truth. capitalism is not the evil here - the problem in totally unregulated capitalism. not only unregulated, but aided by our lame government who participate in the same type of behavior. we must first regulate our employees (government) and then regulate capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.

Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

What problem?

 

[georgephillip]

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

And the subject is changed. I would respond but seeing as how you are arguing in bad faith I have no choice but to leave you be with the understanding that every time you get pinned in a corner you will simply forget the previous argument existed and skip right on to a new one as demonstrated above.

Or maybe you aren't very articulate when defining your subject?

 

[georgephillip]

Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

What problem?

Predatory capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

What problem?

Predatory capitalism.

Though admirable as a humanist ideal, study after study has shown that in the real world socialism doesn’t work very well. Sadly, it leaves the work force insufficiently motivated to put forth its best effort—simply because it doesn’t finally “pay” to do so. So such a political or commercial system ends up stunting individual initiative, and also leaves the economy floundering.

I agree, we should avoid socialism.

 

[bonehead]

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.

What problem?

Predatory capitalism.

just wondering if Toddsterpatriot wished to admit that online. I kinda gathered his position before but wanted it stated for the record.

 

[georgephillip]

"In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).

"Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.

"The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."

Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realize you are not putting too much effort into posting, when all you do is 'cut and paste' from a link....

But that said, I do wonder why you even put in that little effort, when you must already know that what you are posting is obviously false, and we all know this.

Everything said has been proven wrong a million times over. Why post it again?

In fact, we're proving it wrong right now as we speak. We are engaging in increasing trade, and we are engaged in capital invest, and yet employment is slowly dropping right now. We did that in the 90s, and employment went down.

We hindered trade and capital investment in the 1930s, and had a great depression.

And lastly, this results in rising income for all classes. And in a true capitalist system, everyone is a capitalist. I'm a capitalist.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Chinese were better off in the more equal pre-78 system, where everyone was born, lived, and died, in complete impoverishment, but it least everyone was impoverished equally? They seem to like the current unequal system better.

If we're all capitalists, why isn't income rising for all economic classes in the US?
Do you think it has anything to do with monopoly capitalism and its paradox of accumulation?

"This month marks the eightieth anniversary of the 1929 Stock Market Crash that precipitated the Great Depression of the 1930s. Ironically, this comes at the very moment that the capitalist system is celebrating having narrowly escaped falling into a similar abyss.

"The financial crash and the decline in output a year ago, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, was as steep as at the beginning of the Great Depression. 'For a while,' Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times in August, 'key economic indicators—world trade, world industrial production, even stock prices—were falling as fast or faster than they did in 1929-30. But in the 1930s the trend lines kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.'1

"Big government, through the federal bailout and stimulus, as well as the shock-absorber effects of the continued payouts of unemployment and Social Security benefits, Medicare, etc., slowed the descent and helped the economy to level off, albeit at a point well below previous output.:

Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation

 

[Andylusion]

well, the Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work. and I am not saying it would be easy to set up a direct democracy. My thoughts would be a select panel of citizens to advise the voters as to the benefits, drawbacks and costs of legislation before the vote starts. these people would have to be selected by the general public and not "elected". who knows, you might find people volunteering for this to make improvements in the government. unlike most, I consider government as just a tool to assist the citizens in obtaining and maintaining the constitutional rights - unlike others who feel government must constantly inform us of their choice of what rights they have determined we may be allowed. you are correct, though, a direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention to issues that are to be voted on. so you choose - you want to be governed by 535 rich guys, or 210,000,000 people like you.

But they are not like me. Not at all like me.

[ame=http://youtu.be/woBC5b3Ti0M]Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube[/ame]

This.... is normal. Most people are like this. Most people don't have a clue. Now of course, he was interviewing Obama morons, but there are many Republican morons as well.

And you are asking me, if I want 210 Million idiots controlling the government? Of course not. The fact you want people like those in that audio above, running our nation, is scary. That's scary!

Gore's campaign pulled off a huge bounce with 'the Kiss' | Jacksonville.com

Do you remember this? Where you around when this happened?

For those who don't remember, or were not around at the time, during the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was behind in the polls by double digits.

Then during the Democratic National Convention, Gore grabbed his then wife (not sure if they are still married), and gave her a long massive mouth to mouth kiss. A really big one, long and deep.

Now to me, that's fine. No big deal. At least he is committed to his wife (or so it seemed). But then... the polls jumped. Literally because of a kiss, suddenly because of a kiss..... just a kiss.... he gained 5 or 6 points in the polls. He was back in the race again.

Now think about that. Kissing..... gets you votes? I was a Rush Limbaugh fan at that time. I haven't listened to him in over 10 years, but at the time, I was a fan. Rush asked people to call in who had changed their minds on Al Gore, because of the kiss. And people literally called in, to try and explain why they were now Gore voters, because of the kiss. (mostly women by the way).

This is who you want running our government??!?

People who vote not based on evidence, not based on policy, not based on ideology, not based on anything logical or rational, but rather based on kissing???

Because this is what you are advocating, whether you understand that or not. You are saying that giving people like this, who don't know the issues, don't now the policies, but they like Obama because he picked Palin to run with him, and he supports the Iraq war, and because Gore can kiss..... and you want to give them more complete control over the policies of the government??? Really? Those people you want running the nation?

Bad plan! If we follow your belief system to it's fullest, you will destroy this country, no question about it.

Now some quick comments on your plan....

Yeah, you'll get some volunteers alright. The Unions will send their guys for sure, to push for any pro-union legislation. You'll have the eco-nuts, sending their people to vote for anything that hinders economic growth. You'll have the minority groups, send their people to push for any special treatment for their respective groups.

Yeah, you'll get some volunteers for sure. No doubt about it.

Give the special interest groups more ability to affect legislation, yeah, that will most certainly reduce special interest money in government, because the groups can directly control legislation. The value of giving money to a politician who supports you views would go down under that situation, but is that really better giving the inmates control over the asylum?

"direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention"

Yeah.... and they won't. We have more control over government today, than at any time in the past. Think about it.... At the start of this country, only land owners could vote. Blacks couldn't vote period. Women couldn't vote period.

Today anyone can vote, and virtually anyone can get into politics, and if they express views that a significant portion of the public believe in, they can succeed in politics. Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, and numerous others that are less notable, and yet grew up in lower to middle class families, that simply stood up for something, and other people supported it.

Yet with all of this control given to the public, the public is less informed about the fundamentals of government than ever before.

And you think giving the ignorant people even more control, is going to do what? Magically make them informed, when they have less and less interest in being informed as it is?

"Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work"

Yes, and no, not really. First, fundamental differences between US and them.

Ohio has 11.5 Million people, over 44K sq miles.
Switzerland has 8 Million people, over 16K sq miles.

It is much easier to engage in a form of direct democracy at the state level, than at the Federal level. Switzerland is more like a state. And many states do hold referendums on policy. We just held a vote last week on policies in our area, here in Ohio.

Further, running a vote over a massive country like the US, is not just difficult, it's completely impractical.

Yet even then, the system in Switzerland is highly difficult to actually make a real change.

First usually a special interest group, proposes a law, or change. They must collect no less than 100,000 signatures to have the law brought up for a vote.

(so already, it's special interests taking advantage of the system).

Then the vote is put to the public in that particular canton. If passed, the Federal government of Switzerland is required to "consider" the matter. This results in some legislation being proposed by Parliament.

(so again, the public representatives are the ones making the laws)

The version of the law that Parliament writes, is then sent to the public for vote. The vote must get not only a majority of the public, but also a majority of the cantons.

(almost exactly like the US election system. You can't just win the popular vote, but you must win enough electoral votes form the states)

If they get the majority of cantons, but not public votes, they lose. If they get the majority of public votes, but not the majority of cantons, they lose.

As a result, very very few public initiatives actually win.

Now here's another problem.... in a country our size, with 310 Million people, instead of 8 Million, and with the thousands of special interest groups, we would have so many public initiatives, we'd have a vote for 5 of them, every single week.

Some other key things I've read, include that Switzerland routinely has 2 to 3 votes a year. That would be horrendously expensive in the US. They actually have many cantons (could be national) that charge a fine to people who don't vote. (try that in the US, and we'll have a riot). Yet even so, they still only have a voter turn out of 30% to 60% tops. (just about what we have here).

That's not going to work here.

Lastly, a homogenous society.

Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society.

In a diverse society like ours, you have a ton of group-think and group-political-warfare. In those situations, many people can push policies that they believe will effect 'the other group', but not them.

For example, would the people of Switzerland ever say "I want legislation that punishes me for how I think". Well of course not.

Here in the US, we have so-called "hate crime laws" where we give stiffer punishment because "you hated him". Who voted for that? Black people, and black special interest groups. Why? They believed it would effect the other group, and benefit their group. The reality? Most people convicted of hate crimes, are black people. Would they have voted for it in a homogenous society, knowing the group that would be nailed the most by their law, would be their group? No never.

Such a law wouldn't be passed in Switzerland, because in a homogenous society, where there is basically only one group... there is no other 'group' that it would affect and not themselves.... so they wouldn't pass such a law.

It's the same thing as health care reform. In 2009, when the debate was at it's hottest, a poll came out. The poll asked people a question, and if at any time they answered 'no', the poll was over for them.

The first question was 'do you support government funded universal health care?'. The majority answered yes, I think by a 67% margin (or something like that).

Now those who said no, are gone. Of the people left, they asked:
Would you support government funded universal health care, if you had to pay a 0.5% additional income tax? Then 1% additional income tax, then 2.5%, then 5% then 10% and I don't remember the rest.

On the very first question, 0.5% additional income tax, more than half said no, and at 1% tax, less than 20% of those who claimed they support gov-care said they still supported it, and above that it was only a tiny tiny sliver of people.

Now what does this tell you? It should tell you, that the vast vast majority of those who support gov-care, all believed that "the other group" would pay for it.

In a homogenous society, there is no 'other group'. People would instinctively understand that the 'other group' that pays for everything... is them. Because there is no 'other group' that magically pays for everything.

So I would say again. Yes Switzerland can get away with some amount of direct democracy, in a homogenous society. That would not work here.

In our country, direct democracy would end up with huge costly spending programs, all built on the idea that 'the other group' would pay for it, and with a population ignorant of economics, would mindlessly support anything that's "free" paid for by the 'other group'.

 

[Fishlore]

"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."

Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.

 

[Andylusion]

If we're all capitalists, why isn't income rising for all economic classes in the US?
Do you think it has anything to do with monopoly capitalism and its paradox of accumulation?

"This month marks the eightieth anniversary of the 1929 Stock Market Crash that precipitated the Great Depression of the 1930s. Ironically, this comes at the very moment that the capitalist system is celebrating having narrowly escaped falling into a similar abyss.

"The financial crash and the decline in output a year ago, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, was as steep as at the beginning of the Great Depression. 'For a while,' Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times in August, 'key economic indicators—world trade, world industrial production, even stock prices—were falling as fast or faster than they did in 1929-30. But in the 1930s the trend lines kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.'1

"Big government, through the federal bailout and stimulus, as well as the shock-absorber effects of the continued payouts of unemployment and Social Security benefits, Medicare, etc., slowed the descent and helped the economy to level off, albeit at a point well below previous output.:

Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation

I've covered this before, there are numerous reasons why income isn't magically rising.

First off, you generally don't get paid more simply because you exist. "sucking air" is not grounds for a raise.

You get paid more, when you are more valuable. When you do something that has a greater value to the customer, you generally get paid more by the company.

You would instinctively understand this, if you were the one shelling out the money. Say you hired a guy to mow your lawn, and paid him $25 per cut.

Now say after doing that for five years, he comes to you and demands $100 a lawn. You know, because he sucked air, and did his job, suddenly he's magically worth $100 to mow a lawn? Well crap, at two cuts a month, with that $200 you could buy a bran new mower, and enough gas to mow for the entire year.

Are you going to do that? Most would say no. The fact you freakin exist, and suck air, doesn't magically mean you deserve higher pay.

What makes you earn higher pay, is when you do something worth more. Learn a skill, get a degree, take a class, read a book, do something that has a higher value to the market place.

You don't just get more money because you 'did your job'. Your raise is effective, when *YOU* are.

Flipping a burger over is not so skill intensive that doing it for 12 months straight means you are magically worth another $1 an hour. And the customer is certainly not going to pay another dollar because "WOW! Look how well this burger has been flipped!"

Further, I have wealth accumulation right now. I just told you, I gained 23% on my investments last year. Where is this 'monopoly' you are talking about? Why doesn't it effect me?

People choose what to do with their money. If they choose to drink it away, and piss it down the drain, that's not a fault of capitalism. That's a choice by individuals.

Again, Warren Buffet used money from a paper route in High school, to buy a pinball machine, and place it in a business nearby. There was nothing 'special' about Buffet. He was particularly brilliant. He wasn't part of the 'monopoly'. He simply made wise choices, and invested his money, instead of blowing it like most high school students.

The CEO of 1-800-GOT-JUNK, didn't get there because he was "part of the monopoly of capital!", or some other nonsense. He got to be a millionaire, because instead of blowing $900 on parties, and girl friends in high school, he bought a beat up, pickup truck, and painted a sign "We stash your trash". He invested his money into making more money, and shockingly he's got more money.

People make choices. That's all there is to it. I'd much rather have that system, then a socialist system where people have no choice. Complete equality, because everyone has no choice but to be equally poor.

 

[Andylusion]

"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."

Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.

Oh come. Stop being so shallow. You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.

Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda

Canadian Journal of Political Science

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press

Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society than its heterogeneous ones.

I'm not going to argue this with you. Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.

Not arguing this with you any further. Thanks.

 

[bonehead]

"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."

Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.

Oh come. Stop being so shallow. You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.

Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda

Canadian Journal of Political Science

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press

Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society than its heterogeneous ones.

I'm not going to argue this with you. Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.

Not arguing this with you any further. Thanks.

quite an interesting thought. now. why was it we had a revolution to kick out the British? I forget.

 

[bonehead]

well, the Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work. and I am not saying it would be easy to set up a direct democracy. My thoughts would be a select panel of citizens to advise the voters as to the benefits, drawbacks and costs of legislation before the vote starts. these people would have to be selected by the general public and not "elected". who knows, you might find people volunteering for this to make improvements in the government. unlike most, I consider government as just a tool to assist the citizens in obtaining and maintaining the constitutional rights - unlike others who feel government must constantly inform us of their choice of what rights they have determined we may be allowed. you are correct, though, a direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention to issues that are to be voted on. so you choose - you want to be governed by 535 rich guys, or 210,000,000 people like you.

But they are not like me. Not at all like me.

[ame=http://youtu.be/woBC5b3Ti0M]Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube[/ame]

This.... is normal. Most people are like this. Most people don't have a clue. Now of course, he was interviewing Obama morons, but there are many Republican morons as well.

And you are asking me, if I want 210 Million idiots controlling the government? Of course not. The fact you want people like those in that audio above, running our nation, is scary. That's scary!

Gore's campaign pulled off a huge bounce with 'the Kiss' | Jacksonville.com

Do you remember this? Where you around when this happened?

For those who don't remember, or were not around at the time, during the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was behind in the polls by double digits.

Then during the Democratic National Convention, Gore grabbed his then wife (not sure if they are still married), and gave her a long massive mouth to mouth kiss. A really big one, long and deep.

Now to me, that's fine. No big deal. At least he is committed to his wife (or so it seemed). But then... the polls jumped. Literally because of a kiss, suddenly because of a kiss..... just a kiss.... he gained 5 or 6 points in the polls. He was back in the race again.

Now think about that. Kissing..... gets you votes? I was a Rush Limbaugh fan at that time. I haven't listened to him in over 10 years, but at the time, I was a fan. Rush asked people to call in who had changed their minds on Al Gore, because of the kiss. And people literally called in, to try and explain why they were now Gore voters, because of the kiss. (mostly women by the way).

This is who you want running our government??!?

People who vote not based on evidence, not based on policy, not based on ideology, not based on anything logical or rational, but rather based on kissing???

Because this is what you are advocating, whether you understand that or not. You are saying that giving people like this, who don't know the issues, don't now the policies, but they like Obama because he picked Palin to run with him, and he supports the Iraq war, and because Gore can kiss..... and you want to give them more complete control over the policies of the government??? Really? Those people you want running the nation?

Bad plan! If we follow your belief system to it's fullest, you will destroy this country, no question about it.

Now some quick comments on your plan....

Yeah, you'll get some volunteers alright. The Unions will send their guys for sure, to push for any pro-union legislation. You'll have the eco-nuts, sending their people to vote for anything that hinders economic growth. You'll have the minority groups, send their people to push for any special treatment for their respective groups.

Yeah, you'll get some volunteers for sure. No doubt about it.

Give the special interest groups more ability to affect legislation, yeah, that will most certainly reduce special interest money in government, because the groups can directly control legislation. The value of giving money to a politician who supports you views would go down under that situation, but is that really better giving the inmates control over the asylum?

"direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention"

Yeah.... and they won't. We have more control over government today, than at any time in the past. Think about it.... At the start of this country, only land owners could vote. Blacks couldn't vote period. Women couldn't vote period.

Today anyone can vote, and virtually anyone can get into politics, and if they express views that a significant portion of the public believe in, they can succeed in politics. Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, and numerous others that are less notable, and yet grew up in lower to middle class families, that simply stood up for something, and other people supported it.

Yet with all of this control given to the public, the public is less informed about the fundamentals of government than ever before.

And you think giving the ignorant people even more control, is going to do what? Magically make them informed, when they have less and less interest in being informed as it is?

"Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work"

Yes, and no, not really. First, fundamental differences between US and them.

Ohio has 11.5 Million people, over 44K sq miles.
Switzerland has 8 Million people, over 16K sq miles.

It is much easier to engage in a form of direct democracy at the state level, than at the Federal level. Switzerland is more like a state. And many states do hold referendums on policy. We just held a vote last week on policies in our area, here in Ohio.

Further, running a vote over a massive country like the US, is not just difficult, it's completely impractical.

Yet even then, the system in Switzerland is highly difficult to actually make a real change.

First usually a special interest group, proposes a law, or change. They must collect no less than 100,000 signatures to have the law brought up for a vote.

(so already, it's special interests taking advantage of the system).

Then the vote is put to the public in that particular canton. If passed, the Federal government of Switzerland is required to "consider" the matter. This results in some legislation being proposed by Parliament.

(so again, the public representatives are the ones making the laws)

The version of the law that Parliament writes, is then sent to the public for vote. The vote must get not only a majority of the public, but also a majority of the cantons.

(almost exactly like the US election system. You can't just win the popular vote, but you must win enough electoral votes form the states)

If they get the majority of cantons, but not public votes, they lose. If they get the majority of public votes, but not the majority of cantons, they lose.

As a result, very very few public initiatives actually win.

Now here's another problem.... in a country our size, with 310 Million people, instead of 8 Million, and with the thousands of special interest groups, we would have so many public initiatives, we'd have a vote for 5 of them, every single week.

Some other key things I've read, include that Switzerland routinely has 2 to 3 votes a year. That would be horrendously expensive in the US. They actually have many cantons (could be national) that charge a fine to people who don't vote. (try that in the US, and we'll have a riot). Yet even so, they still only have a voter turn out of 30% to 60% tops. (just about what we have here).

That's not going to work here.

Lastly, a homogenous society.

Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society.

In a diverse society like ours, you have a ton of group-think and group-political-warfare. In those situations, many people can push policies that they believe will effect 'the other group', but not them.

For example, would the people of Switzerland ever say "I want legislation that punishes me for how I think". Well of course not.

Here in the US, we have so-called "hate crime laws" where we give stiffer punishment because "you hated him". Who voted for that? Black people, and black special interest groups. Why? They believed it would effect the other group, and benefit their group. The reality? Most people convicted of hate crimes, are black people. Would they have voted for it in a homogenous society, knowing the group that would be nailed the most by their law, would be their group? No never.

Such a law wouldn't be passed in Switzerland, because in a homogenous society, where there is basically only one group... there is no other 'group' that it would affect and not themselves.... so they wouldn't pass such a law.

It's the same thing as health care reform. In 2009, when the debate was at it's hottest, a poll came out. The poll asked people a question, and if at any time they answered 'no', the poll was over for them.

The first question was 'do you support government funded universal health care?'. The majority answered yes, I think by a 67% margin (or something like that).

Now those who said no, are gone. Of the people left, they asked:
Would you support government funded universal health care, if you had to pay a 0.5% additional income tax? Then 1% additional income tax, then 2.5%, then 5% then 10% and I don't remember the rest.

On the very first question, 0.5% additional income tax, more than half said no, and at 1% tax, less than 20% of those who claimed they support gov-care said they still supported it, and above that it was only a tiny tiny sliver of people.

Now what does this tell you? It should tell you, that the vast vast majority of those who support gov-care, all believed that "the other group" would pay for it.

In a homogenous society, there is no 'other group'. People would instinctively understand that the 'other group' that pays for everything... is them. Because there is no 'other group' that magically pays for everything.

So I would say again. Yes Switzerland can get away with some amount of direct democracy, in a homogenous society. That would not work here.

In our country, direct democracy would end up with huge costly spending programs, all built on the idea that 'the other group' would pay for it, and with a population ignorant of economics, would mindlessly support anything that's "free" paid for by the 'other group'.

much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".

 

[Fishlore]

"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."

Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.

Oh come. Stop being so shallow. You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.

Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda

Canadian Journal of Political Science

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press

Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society than its heterogeneous ones.

I'm not going to argue this with you. Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.

Not arguing this with you any further. Thanks.

Language, religion and economy are shallow, skin-deep social parameters? What a strange notion. Citing some obscure Canadian journal without even trying to summarize its content while offering absolutely no thoughts about homogeneity isn't an argument. No wonder you aren't going to argue further, you haven't even started yet.

 

[Andylusion]

much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".

You would rather be ruled by the stupid? They won't talk down to you, but they'll completely ruin the entire country?

Again, if I thought the Swiss system would work here, then I'd be for it. But it won't. I know you think it will, but it won't!

And honestly, I have never felt like I was "talked down to" by anyone. People who are 'looking for offense' are going to be offended no matter what anyone says.

I'm more concerned which what would be the best over all system, than 'well I don't like Obama talking down at me'. Obama is a politician. That's all.

Again, I would much rather have the system that we have, over a system of 210 Million idiots running the country, when they don't even realize that more energy is consumed in making Ethanol, than is produced by the Ethanol. Or worse, that supporting Ethanol "helps farmers!" when most of the Ethanol subsidies go to Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto, and rich people like David Rockefeller and Jim Kennedy, and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).

BTW, who supports alternative energy spending? Well leftists of course. Every time a leftist starts screaming about how Democrats and Liberals, are for the people and against big companies and the rich and wealthy, call them liars, because they are. All liars.

Back to the point though. People are not going to know this stuff. I still meet people who think Ethanol is great, and we need to work our way off oil, and just use Ethanol.

You put the majority of the stupid in charge, and the rich and wealthy are going to convince the ignorant, and will rule the country. How is that 'better'?

 

[Andylusion]

"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."

Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.

Oh come. Stop being so shallow. You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.

Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda

Canadian Journal of Political Science

Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press

Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society than its heterogeneous ones.

I'm not going to argue this with you. Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.

Not arguing this with you any further. Thanks.

Language, religion and economy are shallow, skin-deep social parameters? What a strange notion. Citing some obscure Canadian journal without even trying to summarize its content while offering absolutely no thoughts about homogeneity isn't an argument. No wonder you aren't going to argue further, you haven't even started yet.

Yes yes, blaw blaw blaw, go argue with Cambridge. You prove them false, have them publish a retraction, and then you'll have a point. Until then, you are exactly the type of ignorant person I don't want running the country like bonehead is supporting. You are actually proving my entire point. Thanks for making my case for me.