Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

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.

The middle class is a government tree?

Supply and demand have always had to walk hand in hand. If the US had a major supply issue I would be asking for that to be addressed but we don't. The clear problem is demand and the demand problem is clearly tied to wage growth.

I can explain how increases in productivity without increases in demand can result in a downward spiral if you want but I thought it was obvious.

Congratulations on being a business owner. You owe your business in large part to demand. No matter how awesome you are you have no business without it. Learn to respect it IMO.

We are living through a massive economic correction that is a direct result of the issues I have talked about. It doesn't matter if I have all the experience in the world or none. I am right and the present is proving me right.

I think billionaires know more about what helps them.

 

[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."

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.

^^^Does that work for you?

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

So does death and land estate taxes on farmers, for example. Passing down less and less farm land with each generation, that tries to transfer ownership of the farm to their surviving family members.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'd like to take this moment to repeat my "thanks" to georgiePorgie for having this silly thread of his serve as a prime exhibit of "liberal" thinking.

 

[Bombur]

Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.

Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.

Growth depends on the individual employer finding the best way to reduce costs including the amount they are spending on labor. Growth also depends on all labor having money to spend so that productivity can increase and production can increase.

All governments want their business. That can lead to bad outcomes though. Pollution, working conditions, stagnant wages, inability to tax effectively and fairly, etc.

 

[Contumacious]

OH, SORRY hERE'S THE LINK TO STATS

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

The "STATS" were provided by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

which is funded by Billionaire Socialist George “Göring” Soros

'nuff said

.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

 

[Bombur]

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

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

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

Those aren't smart phones. Muttering a laundry list of other products proves exactly nothing about the demand for the product mentioned.

 

[Indeependent]

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

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.

The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".

 

[Iceweasel]

The middle class is a government tree?

Huh?

Supply and demand have always had to walk hand in hand. If the US had a major supply issue I would be asking for that to be addressed but we don't. The clear problem is demand and the demand problem is clearly tied to wage growth.

If people can't afford goods, demand goes down. So does business. The better the economy, the more money goes around and people increase buying. The economy doesn't simply exist on its' own accord.

I can explain how increases in productivity without increases in demand can result in a downward spiral if you want but I thought it was obvious.

Huh?

Congratulations on being a business owner. You owe your business in large part to demand. No matter how awesome you are you have no business without it. Learn to respect it IMO.

You have a lot of arrogance I see. But you didn't answer my question. I asked what your business experience is. Obviously it's zilch. You don't know what you're talking about.

We are living through a massive economic correction that is a direct result of the issues I have talked about. It doesn't matter if I have all the experience in the world or none. I am right and the present is proving me right.

I think billionaires know more about what helps them.

You are right about the slowest economic recovery in recent times? More people unemployed today than when Obama took office. Most new jobs are part time and liberals overlook that detail to make their idiotic theories look good. Dishonesty and arrogance is a poor substitute for knowledge and results. You couldn't run a one man hot dog stand with your economic understanding. Lecture someone else.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.

Economists can only measures sales. There's no way to measure "demand," especially for a product that doesn't exist yet. Nevertheless, there was clearly demand for the smart phone.

All you're proving is that your economic theories were conjured up by a coven of witch doctors.

 

[Indeependent]

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

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

Those aren't smart phones. Muttering a laundry list of other products proves exactly nothing about the demand for the product mentioned.

Nobody wanted to be limited to the crappy car phones and everyone wanted something more intuitive than a beeper.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Again, the irony.....

The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.

When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie not Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.

Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?

 

[bripat9643]

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.

The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".

That's how most ground breaking products get invented. The marketing gurus are too stupid and unimaginative to think up products that don't exist yet or that aren't just minor variations on exiting products.

 

[bripat9643]

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

Those aren't smart phones. Muttering a laundry list of other products proves exactly nothing about the demand for the product mentioned.

Nobody wanted to be limited to the crappy car phones and everyone wanted something more intuitive than a beeper.

But according to you there was no "demand" for it until Steve Jobs invented it. If there was, then why wasn't anyone selling them?

The bottom line is that "demand" doesn't create products. Entrepreneurs create products. All the demand in the universe doesn't mean a thing until someone with vision devises the product and a way to manufacture and market it. Umbrellas don't suddenly pop into existence because it rains.

 

[GISMYS]

Capitalism as an economic system THAT IS GREAT FOR ALL THAT WILL GET A JOB AND WORK.

 

[Iceweasel]

Capitalism as an economic system THAT IS GREAT FOR ALL THAT WILL GET A JOB AND WORK.

Now you're done it. You used the W word. That's hate speech.

 

[westwall]

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."

No, it doesn't. Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism. Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge. Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.

That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.

Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.

 

[Bombur]

Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.

When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.

Economists can only measures sales. There's no way to measure "demand," especially for a product that doesn't exist yet. Nevertheless, there was clearly demand for the smart phone.

All you're proving is that your economic theories were conjured up by a coven of witch doctors.

I literally just pointed out that the demand being talked about isn't limited to the demand for a single product.

It is like you are taunting me by saying ridiculously ignorant things.