Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people." What color is the sky in your world?

1. Recognize first, all of their "redistributed" money is put back into the economy, which of course creates employment and prosperity for the whole.

Because of course the money poof, appears from no where!

Not at all. Every penny the government spends, either on acquisitions, or welfare, comes out of the economy either by taxes or borrowing.

Actually, the money is taking from producers. They pay people to work, and make a profit, and that grows the economy and "creates employment and prosperity for the whole." Your scenario that taking it away from the one who earned the money and giving it to someone who didn't who spends it not having worked or created any economic value providing a boost to the economy is, let's go with, reality challenged...

Never the less it is still put back into the economy. So yes, there is some redistribution from the haves to the don't haves.

Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty not changing poverty rates and creating what is now multi-generational dependency belies that claim.

I don't disagree with that. That is an entirely different issue. Spending on the relatively poor causes habituation of the gimme syndrome.

DNSmith said, "By reducing the squalor found in most 3rd world countries which in turn breeds disease and vermin exposing the entire population."

I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...

Whether you understand that issue or not is not my problem. Having lived in the 3rd world for over 5 years, I observed it on a regular basis.

DNSmith said, "So Kaz, if we had the kind of third world conditions, even in an area away from your habitat, you would still be exposed to some of the negative conditions those conditions breed. I am sure there are more reasons that can be expressed, but really I don't feel the need to do that much research on the issue. I am satisfied to make the assertion and if you choose to accept it good. If you don't that is your choice."

I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...

Your lack of understanding is YOUR problem. Not mine. I stand by every word I asserted. Maybe you should visit the slums of Calcutta, India, or Dakka, Bangledesh and see for yourself. No one can explain to you what squalor really is, you have to experience it, and there is no example in the US which is equivalent, even in our worst slums.

 

[dnsmith35]

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

Poverty is not against the law. However, stealing is.

"A story is told about an incident that happened during the thirties in New York, on one of the coldest days of the year. The world was in the grip of the Great Depression, and all over the city, the poor were close to starvation.

It happened that the judge was sitting on the bench that day, hearing a complaint against a woman who was charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She pleaded that her daughter was sick, and her grandchildren were starving, because their father had abandoned the family.

"But the shopkeeper, whose loaf had been stolen, refused to drop the charge. He insisted that an example be made of the poor old woman, as a deterrent to others.

"The judge sighed. He was almost reluctant to pass judgment on the woman, yet he had no alternative. 'I'm sorry," he turned to her, "But I can't make any exceptions. The law is the law. I sentence you to a fine of ten dollars, and if you can't pay I must send you to jail for ten days.'

"The woman was heartbroken, but even as he was passing sentence, the judge was reaching into his pocket for the money to pay off the ten-dollar fine. He took off his hat, tossed the ten-dollar bill into it, and then addressed the crowd:

"'I am also going to impose a fine of fifty cents on every person here present in this courtroom, for living in a town where a person has to steal bread to save her grandchildren from starvation. Please collect the fines, Mr. Bailiff, in this hat, and pass them across to the defendant.'"

"And so the accused went home that day from the courtroom with forty-seven dollars and fifty cents — fifty cents of which has been paid by the shame-faced grocery store keeper who had brought the charge against her. And as she left the courtroom, the gathering of petty criminals and New York policemen gave the judge a standing ovation."

Spirituality & Practice: Spiritual Quotations: Justice, Forgiveness, Stealing, Poverty, Judgment by James N. McCutcheon

Nice anecdote, I am sure their are millions of similar stories all over the world. But none of it is relevant today.

 

[dnsmith35]

Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.

only a coward is against something; but wont have the courage of his convictions

according to you capitalism isnt "fixable" it is inherently bad and will always "gaurantee inequality"

but i bet you wont leave for the non-capitalist country of your liking

you arent even as credible as the people who advocate for a European-type of Socialist Democracy

you're simply an idiot

I'll type slower.
There's a Big Fight coming to the US.
The Rich v. the Rest.
I've been waiting for it all my life.
Maybe punks like you should run?
Moron.

In spite of all your assertions, there has never been and likely never will be, a system which creates as much prosperity which is then capable of funding the social programs we have. Socialism simply reduced the wealth of everyone but the commissars.

 

[dnsmith35]

Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?

Again, I don't understand what you're looking for. Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other? No. Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others? Yes. I don't get your implication.

You get it, I just don't think you understand its implication.

The corporate world has enclosed and restricted access to much of the earths resources, granting them exclusive freedoms to extract resources at virtually no cost (subsidies and tax incentives reduce actual costs) and selling them to the people for unsightly amounts of gain--the fact that people survive or are satisfied is secondary to the profit motive. Now why is it ok for much of the earth to be restricted to being exploited for profit instead of the common good of all, the freedom of all?

If you are serious about freedom, you must fight for all people, as I'm sure you agree. Favoritism (giving wild freedoms) towards wealth is cowardice and shallow; defending the freedom of those trampled underfoot is virtue and courage. I'm not saying you are favoring any group, and frankly I think you know not to. Again, if you're serious about freedom, freedom is not to be granted according to what group you belong to but should be a universal matter.

Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.

 

[Chris]

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.

 

[dnsmith35]

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.’s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.’s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica

You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
So let's try again.
How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit

It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.

Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.

Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png

 

[Chris]

You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
So let's try again.
How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit

It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.

Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.

Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It was NOT the housing market.

 

[dnsmith35]

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.

Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.

Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It was NOT the housing market.

Until the housing market crash, there was no big problem in Wall Street. That the investment bankers tried to prevent loses to them was the effect, not the cause. Learn a little about economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.’s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.’s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica

You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
So let's try again.
How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit

It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAUFuTKdWAw]Baretta theme song w/ Sammy Davis Jr. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.

Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.

Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It was NOT the housing market.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?

 

[gnarlylove]

Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.

You have amply established your approach to criticism: 1) ignore it; 2) shout your views louder; 3) repeat. Gee, I wonder where you learned such an ineffective strategy (uh, the "unbiased" media).

Let me use your strategy: "You post unbridled idiocy, too."

See how worthless such a comment is? It doesn't contribute to understanding one another; it is aimed precisely to keep our ideas from interacting: yours boxed and neatly wrapped in one corner while I have my pretty bow in the other and you continue to yell profane and insulting statements in my direction. It prevents the only reasonable thing between opposition: listening and aiming for compromises (which I noted as my goal in my first replies).

As for your quote on Christ, I'm glad you know it (after I quoted it pages ago to you) but if you take Jesus's teachings seriously, I don't think he would approve of you using his wisdom as a weapon to feel superior. I originally had nothing but respect for you. That respect has been entirely effaced for obvious reasons.

 

[Chris]

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

 

[dnsmith35]

Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It was NOT the housing market.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?

The point is, which he does not understand, Wall Street activities were collateral damage to the housing crash, which caused the recession, and the investment bankers tried to salvage THEIR profits at the expense of our financial interest and the people being eaten alive by the recession, which was caused by the housing crash which further caused many people to lose their jobs. Wall Street didn't cause it, but they sure didn't help it any. The idiots in the Occupy Wall Street picketed the wrong people. Now since our mental midget does not understand what happened, the housing crash was caused by numerous forces occurring at the same time, but the two most important factors was multi-administration. CRA, which is self description enough and government fiscal and monetary policy, which if one understands the graph I posted earlier, would also be self descriptive.

Look at the graph, note that the price curve starts to separate from the value curve in 1999. That inflation was fueled by easy credit used to include more Americans to buy homes. It also fueled a buying frenzy among speculators who tended to use ARMs which were cheaper than normal mortgages. As the prices went up further and the real estate market heated and sped up, and as ARM interest went up, when the prices started to peak the speculators could not flip their property, people had bought more than they could afford, then viola, BOOM WENT TO BUST. It was not a single faceted cause, but those were the two most deleterious issues. Then the banks tied bundles of bad mortgages and sold them as investments which blew up in the face of those who purchased them. Also, as the construction workers lost their jobs, people in the construction supply business lost their jobs, lumber companies lost jobs, and BOOM the economy went bust in what has been called the Great Recession. When people start with the blame game, they should first try to find the actual causes. Too many fruit cakes blamed Wall Street, others blamed Clinton and the CRA, still others blamed Bush, but in order of the most important culprits it was the low interest of both Clinton and Bush (government fiscal and monetary policy), then the CRA, then the exacerbation of the whole thing by the investment bankers, not Wall Street, but the big investment bankers who are part of Wall Street. That last issue caused people in the highest Quintile of income, too lose millions more than the average guy on the street, but the guy on the street could not afford the loss, the bankers could. Then they were bailed out by the government. In my opinion that became the most dastardly deed of all. We should have let the banks fail, allow other solvent banks take over their assets and go from there

 

[dnsmith35]

Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.

You have amply established your approach to criticism: 1) ignore it; 2) shout your views louder; 3) repeat. Gee, I wonder where you learned such an ineffective strategy (uh, the "unbiased" media).

Not at all. I could care less about criticism if it is constructive and correct. But nothing you have posted is valid.

Let me use your strategy: "You post unbridled idiocy, too."

I post basic correctness, and if you don't like it get educated.

See how worthless such a comment is? It doesn't contribute to understanding one another;

I don't need to understand you beyond what you showed as your true stripes with the first post I read. It was obvious you were a left wing extremist with a narrow minded view of the world and blinded to the needs of the most poverty stricken people. Your elitist attitude suggesting that caring for our relative poor is more important than helping people who need it more. What a shameful way to view humanity.

it is aimed precisely to keep our ideas from interacting: yours boxed and neatly wrapped in one corner while I have my pretty bow in the other and you continue to yell profane and insulting statements in my direction.

Profane? ROTFLMAO! Nothing is more profane than allowing a poor homeless man in India to starve to death to save some specific elitist unionist, or to give more to the relative poor in the use. Positively, nothing is more profane.

It prevents the only reasonable thing between opposition: listening and aiming for compromises (which I noted as my goal in my first replies).

I have noted no effort on your part to compromise, and I certainly will not compromise my integrity and compassion for the likes of you.

As for your quote on Christ, I'm glad you know it

I not only know it, I live by it.

(after I quoted it pages ago to you)

You are trying to take too much credit

.but if you take Jesus's teachings seriously, I don't think he would approve of you using his wisdom as a weapon to feel superior.

I am superior to no one, I am just a human being who cares for those in need, THE MOST NEED.

I originally had nothing but respect for you. That respect has been entirely effaced for obvious reasons.

You can take your obvious reasons and stuff them. I could care less if you respect me, I respect myself because I know who "the least of his people" are. I don't think you do, and if you do know, you sure don't practice it. Speaking of feeling superior, it is obvious you have no basis to do that. In so far as debating this issue, what integrity you think you had flew out of the window the first time you showed yourself to be a "liberal with borders"; meaning you would rather save a union worker's job than keep needy human beings alive. You made your bed in this discussion and you can't weasel (black weasel with white stripes) out of sleeping in it. You are not taking the high road.

BTW, I started believing you deserved respect when you displayed compassion for the poor, before I realized you had compassion only for a narrow band of poor. The 45 million least wealthy of the US have it good compared to the 500,000 000 destitute in India alone. Then when you started making noises like a Georgist, it became obvious you deserve no respect from anyone, to include self respect.

 

[dnsmith35]

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Do you understand the difference between wage tax rates and capital gain tax rates?
Do you understand why the difference between wage tax rates and capital gain tax rates exist?
Your comments suggest total ignorance of the what and the why. You need to educate your self.
Do you know that the largest difference in inequality of income occurs between the .01% and the .9% of highest incomes in America?
Do you really care? Or do you just prefer to whine and cry?
Do you know that that top 1% does not cause you or anyone else to have a lower income? Again, do you care to know?

I think the answer to every one of the questions is NO, you do not know or understand.

 

[dnsmith35]

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.

We don't have unregulated Capitalism. As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.

 

[georgephillip]

No.

Point out the immorality in the following:

"U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.

"The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.

"An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.

"Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.

"The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History

Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.

Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.

Putting aside the fact that capitalism doesn't even exist without government, any "success" capitalists produce is directly proportional to the capitalists' ability to inflict all negative externalities upon government; it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth.

 

[Fishlore]

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.

We don't have unregulated Capitalism. As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.

The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.

It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.

But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that. The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.

If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes. Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.

The same chauvinists who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion. Wrong on all counts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.

We don't have unregulated Capitalism. As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.

The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.

It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.

But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that. The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.

If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes. Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.

The same chauvinists who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion. Wrong on all counts.

The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault.

Can you expand on this claim?

Say a new bank opens and I make the only deposit of 100 $1 bills.
How much can the bank lend, assuming a 10% reserve requirement?

 

[bripat9643]

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.

We don't have unregulated Capitalism. As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.

The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.

That's funny, because you utterly failed to refute it.

It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.

ROFL! How is this supposed "efficiency" demonstrated? The fact is that under both feudalism and socialism populations have experienced mass starvation. No one has ever starved in a capitalist country because it was unable to produce a sufficient amount of food. No one in the United States has ever starved unless it's do to a freak accident, like being trapped by snow in Donner pass.

But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that.

If that's the case, then it's far more efficient than socialism or feudalism. What else is an economic system supposed to other than produce wealth?

The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.

I agree with you that our system of fiat money is no better than counterfeiting. However, that doesn't explain how capitalism produces wealth. How do worthless scraps of paper cause cell phones and automobiles to come into existence?

If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes.

What the hell are "notional dollars?" I've never heard of any such thing.

Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers.

That isn't capitalism. That's the fascist welfare state that morons like you defend and support. No one who supports in capitalism believes the government should bail out private corporations. Only welfare state bootlickers endorse such a policy.

Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.

The former Soviet Union had far more resources than the United States. That didn't seem to produce much wealth for them. On the other hand, Japan has almost no natural resources, and that country is wealthy. Your theory that wealth is the result of owning natural resources is obviously flawed.

The same chauvinists who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion. Wrong on all counts.

So far, everything you have posted is wrong.