Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

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.

I disagree with the premise. I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich. They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years. He didn't feel "entitled" to it. He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable. He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger. What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments. He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments. He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking. I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not. I don't feel 'entitled' to anything. My stock portfolio made 23% last year. Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off. Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments. Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?


Is that worth a 23% return to you?

The Walton heirs and John Paulson are not parasites, moron. They didn't take their money from anyone. Learn the definition of the term. It doesn't mean "rich people you don't like."

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth.

Horseshit. The term "extracting" is just a pejorative term meaning "producing."

They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Corporations profit from taxation? That's news to me. How do the Waltons make use of the NSA? Your hero Obama is the one who authorized them to record all our phone calls, not the the Waltons. You can't just go around blaming corporations for everything the government does without at least posting some kind of plausible connection. Otherwise people will write you off as a kook.

Whoops1 Too late.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest. It just is. They are a fact of nature.

Each actor in an economy has a purpose. An economy is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.

Economies are man made, and since the time of the first surpluses, the richest actors in every economy have defined the goals in ways to privatize their profits while socializing the costs.

BTW, forests serve an existential purpose without which economies vanish along with the specie.

 

[Fishlore]

Economies are organized and maintained by governments; this, along with defense is the fundamental purpose of government. Different societies have different values and different goals. For this reason, different societies establish different systems of government and create differently structured economic systems.

The values and goals of the US government and the economy which it regulates are stated with unusual clarity and inspiring idealism in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Both are worth a read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

We should cure cancer:

"On the other hand, capitalism—and competition—is regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.

"At least, capitalism at its best does that.

"But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

"One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.

"One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).

"These relentless opportunists—or corporations—frequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.

"In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."

Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today

But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

Government is screwing up capitalism? That's a shocker.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I disagree with the premise. I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich. They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years. He didn't feel "entitled" to it. He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable. He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger. What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments. He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments. He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking. I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not. I don't feel 'entitled' to anything. My stock portfolio made 23% last year. Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off. Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments. Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Is that worth a 23% return to you?

parasites like the Walton heirs

Parasites? You must have a different definition of the word.

Perhaps you could share your definition?

 

[gnarlylove]

Property rights are a means of distributing control over land and resources. Private ownership of property allows us to distribute that control freely through voluntary trade. State ownership of property assigns that control exclusively to government.[/QUOTE]

Well put. But I don't see how it is distributed freely. It seems to cost money by definition (stealing and fraud works fine too if you're "too big to fail") and that isn't very free in my understanding. Unless by freely and voluntary trade you mean the concentration of property (75% of stocks, bonds and similar instruments are owned by 1%) is happily and voluntarily distributed between those who own the cards (for simplicity, the 1%) who control the levers of government, which is very, very true (see Marcy Kaptur warns ?there are domestic enemies to the Republic?). But such a situation leaves out voluntary and freely from the average person, at least 90% of the populous. So your satisfied with the result of free and voltunary trade when it isn't free or voluntary to most people?

 

[dblack]

Property rights are a means of distributing control over land and resources. Private ownership of property allows us to distribute that control freely through voluntary trade. State ownership of property assigns that control exclusively to government.

Well put. But I don't see how it is distributed freely.

I mean each individual decides how to distribute the fruits of their labor. That freedom is fundamental to a free market and a free society.

 

[dblack]

Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest. It just is. They are a fact of nature.

Each actor in an economy has a purpose. An economy, on the other hand, is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.

Exactly. It's the desire to control the actors in the economy that drives the presumption that the economy itself is an entity to be managed and maintained.

 

[gnarlylove]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

 

[bripat9643]

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest. It just is. They are a fact of nature.

Each actor in an economy has a purpose. An economy is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.

Economies are man made, and since the time of the first surpluses, the richest actors in every economy have defined the goals in ways to privatize their profits while socializing the costs.

BTW, forests serve an existential purpose without which economies vanish along with the specie.

Economies are "man made" only in the sense that dandruff is man made. An economy is artifact of human societies. Your theory that they have a "purpose" is pure moonshine. Your claim that the rich define the goals of an economy is even more absurd. Rich people may have goals, but economies don't.

 

[dblack]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

 

[georgephillip]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

 

[Erand7899]

Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

These are to very different questions.

Pick one.

The prime reason for individual toil is survival. The provision of food, water, clothing, and shelter.

Once that has been established, humans toil to provide the luxuries of life. Those luxuries vary by circumstance and ability. Central heat and air is a luxury, but so is a pent house or a yacht. Perhaps just keeping up with the Jones.

Finally, individuals toil for personal satisfaction, such as self esteem, reputation, pride, etc.

There is no such thing as collective toil, any more than there is collective death or collective pain. Humans can have collective goals, but they still labor individually toward those goals.

The basic driver of any economic system is enlightened self interest. People normally act in their own self interest, even when doing so in a group. In every economic system, except capitalism, enlightened self interest means staying on the right side of the people who have political power. Sadly, that is where all liberal/socialists seem to want to push this nation towards. You get to succeed, but only if the government smiles favorably on your success.

 

[dblack]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

As long as universal, individual rights are upheld, the freedom to apply your labor as you see fit isn't predetermined by 'accident of birth'.

 

[sameech]

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

Then that problem is being perpetuated by stealing the fruits of others' labors to enable the problem to remain unaddressed. The issue really boils down to the misapplication of public resources. We can almost universally agree, or at least with a supermajority, that education is of public importance. When we take money that could be used for better education and instead spend it on companies destined for bankruptcy in alternative energy, then disagreements abound.

Winning more votes than/getting more fundraising money than the other party should not be how we prioritize our public square and public treasure. The current welfare models clearly have some pretty nasty feedback looping but yet we refuse to change anything because to do so would be to admit that "We were wrong," and we certainly cannot have anybody telling truth in politics these days.

 

[Erand7899]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

An accident of birth predetermines that people are only born equal as free citizens. Some are going to be better looking than others. A definite plus. Some are going to be born with talents. A definite plus. Some are going to have more resouces from their families. A definite plus. Others are going to be tall, short, strong, weak, smart or dumb.

The game of life is not what you started with, but how far you can get with what you have been given. The simple fact that a baby born poor, ugly, and untalented, can become a very rich person through his/her own efforts, belies all of your propaganda about how the game is rigged.

The vast majority of disadvantaged adults in this society are the products of their own bad decisions. They have rigged the system against themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.

Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.

The word "freedom" does not refer to circumstances that may constrain you. It refers only to government constraints.

Changing the meaning of words is a favorite leftist propaganda technique.

 

[georgephillip]

I disagree with the premise. I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich. They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years. He didn't feel "entitled" to it. He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable. He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger. What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments. He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments. He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking. I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not. I don't feel 'entitled' to anything. My stock portfolio made 23% last year. Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off. Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments. Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?


Is that worth a 23% return to you?

The Walton heirs and John Paulson are not parasites, moron. They didn't take their money from anyone. Learn the definition of the term. It doesn't mean "rich people you don't like."

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth.

Horseshit. The term "extracting" is just a pejorative term meaning "producing."

They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Corporations profit from taxation? That's news to me. How do the Waltons make use of the NSA? Your hero Obama is the one who authorized them to record all our phone calls, not the the Waltons. You can't just go around blaming corporations for everything the government does without at least posting some kind of plausible connection. Otherwise people will write you off as a kook.

Whoops1 Too late.

US corporations currently profit from paying less federal income tax than they paid fifty years ago, and directly from wars of aggression, or do you imagine Haliburton's Iraq billions did not come from taxpayers?

The NSA's corporate partners may not include Walmart, but Walton heirs still benefit from a surveillance state that's owned by the richest 1% of its citizens.

"Every day, there is new information on the shrinking of the scope of liberty and personal privacy.

"Thursday, for example, the New York Times reported:

"The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.

"In court documents filed by Google and obtained by Consumer Watchdog, the tech giant argued 'a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.'

"Basically, Google claims the right to read the e-mail of all its customers in order to push ads to them based on key words in the communications.

"Earlier, The New American reported on the participation of Facebook with government inquiries into users’ private data stored by the social-media company.

"In light of the collusion of corporate, technological, and government interests it is important to rehearse the list of those companies whose cooperation in the various NSA snooping programs is facilitating the construction of the surveillance state."

Who Are the NSA's Corporate Partners?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

We should cure cancer:

"On the other hand, capitalism—and competition—is regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.

"At least, capitalism at its best does that.

"But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

"One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.

"One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).

"These relentless opportunists—or corporations—frequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.

"In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."

Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today

But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulated—or both.

Government is screwing up capitalism? That's a shocker.

There's little shocking about rich bitches screwing up government.

 

[georgephillip]

These are to very different questions.

Pick one.

The prime reason for individual toil is survival. The provision of food, water, clothing, and shelter.

Once that has been established, humans toil to provide the luxuries of life. Those luxuries vary by circumstance and ability. Central heat and air is a luxury, but so is a pent house or a yacht. Perhaps just keeping up with the Jones.

Finally, individuals toil for personal satisfaction, such as self esteem, reputation, pride, etc.

There is no such thing as collective toil, any more than there is collective death or collective pain. Humans can have collective goals, but they still labor individually toward those goals.

The basic driver of any economic system is enlightened self interest. People normally act in their own self interest, even when doing so in a group. In every economic system, except capitalism, enlightened self interest means staying on the right side of the people who have political power. Sadly, that is where all liberal/socialists seem to want to push this nation towards. You get to succeed, but only if the government smiles favorably on your success.

In capitalism you get to succeed only if investment bankers approve of your business model. Imagine the difference if Google or Microsoft had tried to secure funding as non-profits? National economies are collective in nature, and they have a purpose. Is it to maximize the number of jobs or supply goods and services with the minimum number of jobs? Or is it actually disguised government, designed to impose political blinders on a majority of the population?