Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Erand7899]

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

Your tale needs five years of backstory.
Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004

"from Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?

Couldn't be too damn deadly, you are still alive. We have criminality and fraud in every area of government and finance, and have had it for over a hundred years. It always gravitates towards where the easy money is. However, we have laws to deal with criminality and fraud, an FBI to identify and collect evidence on criminality and fraud, and a criminal justice system to deal with criminality and fraud.

Like all bubbles, it collapsed of its own weight, no one brought it down, or caused it to burst. Like a ponsi scheme, bubbles have to have new money constantly coming in to compensate the profit takers. The American public ran out of money to buy houses with.

Much like all liberal/socialists, you spend hours attempting to find some plausable reason for failure, that allows you not to have to examine your core beliefs in how the system ought to work. The housing bubble was caused by the federal government attempting, once again, to reengineer our society. It started with the Community Redevopment Act, and progressed through the use of blinders and rose colored glasses, and ended with the originators looking for someone else to blame.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

You may put aside anything you wish, but of all the modern economic systems there are or have been, Capitalism is the ONLY ONE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO EXIST. What our capitalism needs is regulation, not control; to be in any country which has property rights as a standard option. We have and I approve of the government regulating Capitalism for consumer protection. Your statement, "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," is totally warped and nothing but Bullshit. ONLY Capitalism generates sufficient prosperity to allow the government to give aid to the needy. Socialism and Communism do nothing but create more poverty. You have again inserted your head into your excremental orifice.

You are totally incapable of giving us a single example of a successful socialist or communist system, and the only countries who use LVT successfully are the few who collect the LVT, and the occupier of the land has exclusive rights to occupy, and to bequeath his rights as he sees fit. Nothing like the Georgist system some ignorant people tout.

Do you pay the slightest attention to the shit you post?
Capitalism is, at the same time, the only economic system which does not require government and capitalism needs regulation? Is that right, Sparky? What sort of democratic regulation exists outside of government, corporate courts? No one is denying capitalism generates huge quantities of wealth; what is being denied is capitalism's well proven, inherent tendency to distribute that wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. (r>g)

 

[dnsmith35]

What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.

Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.

Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.

First you'll have to list what you call "corruption." I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.

People like George Phillips, and the occupy wall street movement et all presume Wall Street is corrupt because of the huge amount of money they make, even if it is completely legal and proper. They cannot imagine wealth with out corruption. More the pity!

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.

First you'll have to list what you call "corruption." I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.

People like George Phillips, and the occupy wall street movement et all presume Wall Street is corrupt because of the huge amount of money they make, even if it is completely legal and proper. They cannot imagine wealth with out corruption. More the pity!

it's true in the case of government. When people are handling other people's money, the temptation to siphon some off is irresistible, and the methods designed to prevent it are a lot less effective.

 

[georgephillip]

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.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png

Your tale needs five years of backstory.
Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004

"from Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?

Couldn't be too damn deadly, you are still alive. We have criminality and fraud in every area of government and finance, and have had it for over a hundred years. It always gravitates towards where the easy money is. However, we have laws to deal with criminality and fraud, an FBI to identify and collect evidence on criminality and fraud, and a criminal justice system to deal with criminality and fraud.

Like all bubbles, it collapsed of its own weight, no one brought it down, or caused it to burst. Like a ponsi scheme, bubbles have to have new money constantly coming in to compensate the profit takers. The American public ran out of money to buy houses with.

Much like all liberal/socialists, you spend hours attempting to find some plausable reason for failure, that allows you not to have to examine your core beliefs in how the system ought to work. The housing bubble was caused by the federal government attempting, once again, to reengineer our society. It started with the Community Redevopment Act, and progressed through the use of blinders and rose colored glasses, and ended with the originators looking for someone else to blame.

Five years before Americans ran out of money to buy houses, the FBI warned of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud", with 80% of it coming from lenders. Like all reactionaries you blame government for the crimes of those who buy and sell politicians like toilet paper. Take off your blinders.

 

[dnsmith35]

"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.

You should get our more:

"It was a county formed 19 years before the Civil War.
But in the towns lying between borders in Owsley, in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, a portrait of Americans shows a community that appears frozen in time, where many still live without water or electricity.

"According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Appalachian county has the lowest median household income in the states - a staggering 41.5 per cent of residents falling below the poverty line.

Pictured: The modern day poverty of Kentucky where people live with no running water or electricity | Mail Online

Rising rates of inequality coupled with austerity responses to the failures of the private sector guarantee the relevance of "anecdotes" from the last time capitalism nearly destroyed itself.

Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.

All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.

 

[Bush92]

The "freeist" (sp?) form of government on earth is the one with the least oversight and interaction with the people. Rousseau was right on this. Locke was correct on his theory of the social contract. let the people and the free market blaze their own trail. Big government = despotism.

 

[dnsmith35]

The real facts about the inequality of income mostly occur in the top .01% of our population with the major disparity occuring in about 400 citizens. Their income can be near 300 million a year, yet the top .01% income averages out closer to 30K people. The average income of the top .01% of our people is grossly over stated for the average of the total, IE it is skewed by the top 400 incomes to make it appear that more people make $6 million a year than actually do. From all of the crying the left wing extremists do about inequality of income, it is apparent that they don't realize that a huge portion of our capital comes from this group. JFK recognized it and cut the top tax bracket by 21% of all over $200K such that the top bracket cut and the corporate tax cut would help to bring more people into the work force and our economy would expand. Here we have one of our more liberal presidents understanding the balance of economic capital needed for more jobs and prosperity across the board.

I am a liberal socially, but as a student of the economy (my major when I earned my MBA) I recogize that economics SHOULD NOT BE POLITICAL. Politicize our social programs, don't bite the hands which feed those social programs. On this thread we have been discussing the requirements to help our least brethren in the US (most don't want to even consider those who are vastly more poor). Yet I have not seen a single post which discusses how to better take care of our people below the poverty line (IE those who are relatively poor based on having less wealth than those who earn more.)

Recognize too, that there is as much difference between a liberal and a left winger as their is a difference between the top .01% wealthy citizens and the bottom quintile.

 

[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.

The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns. Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.

"Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.

"The war powers also authorized the project.

"The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns. Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.

"Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.

"The war powers also authorized the project.

"The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynching blacks was also very popular in Tennessee during the same time period. Are you going to claim that it's moral to lynch black people?

Also, being constitutional and being moral are two different things. I don't agree that it's constitutional. I'm not going to get into that discussion. But even if it was that still wouldn't make it moral.

 

[gnarlylove]

The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.

All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.

You believe capitalism plays a small role (at best) in creating the problems of society: namely how property, goods and services are distributed. For if we think about the problem, it is in that what is required to eek out a decent living is not being distributed to those who need it most.

What is capitalism and what role does it actually play in this problem?

Capitalism is often associated with markets. And markets distribute goods according to the highest payer.

We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits. That extremely tiny sector is called CEO and Board of Directors and major Shareholders.

So given the fact that a tiny minority is in control of a majority of what society produces and what to do with the profits. It should leave no wonder why those in that position decide to pay themselves 300+ times more than their average paid employee. They deserve it since they decide what society is like.

So how do these two ways of thinking about capitalism relate to our problem (identified above)?

It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price. So poor people are automatically and fundamentally disadvantaged from the start due to the nature of markets.

So the question is why do the poor not have the cash to pay the highest price?

The evidence is clear: being born into a wealthy family affords you opportunities unmatched by those stupid enough to be born into a low income family. Those who escape low income are the exception, not the rule and do not represent the average scenario for a person born into a low income household.

But the question remains: do these families deserve being low income? In some cases one might argue yes. But in most cases? That's really impossible to make a legitimate judgment on that.

And do the uber-wealthy families deserve their wealth? If by deserve you mean paid themselves high salaries from the profit their employees produced, then yes, they deserve it. But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves. No human is so talented as to legitimately earn 80 billion in a lifetime.

And this is precisely what capitalism is. So yes: Capitalism plays a major role in creating the economic reality across the globe whether you think people earned their lot in life or not. Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed and the economic realities are created, including abject poverty and millions of deaths each year over pennies a day (malaria medicine, basic nets, anti-diarrheal medicine etc.)

 

[georgephillip]

The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns. Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.

"Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.

"The war powers also authorized the project.

"The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynching blacks was also very popular in Tennessee during the same time period. Are you going to claim that it's moral to lynch black people?

Also, being constitutional and being moral are two different things. I don't agree that it's constitutional. I'm not going to get into that discussion. But even if it was that still wouldn't make it moral.

Eliminating malaria and providing electricity to millions of consumers made it moral.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.

All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.

You believe capitalism plays a small role (at best) in creating the problems of society: namely how property, goods and services are distributed. For if we think about the problem, it is in that what is required to eek out a decent living is not being distributed to those who need it most.

What is capitalism and what role does it actually play in this problem?

Capitalism is often associated with markets. And markets distribute goods according to the highest payer.

We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits. That extremely tiny sector is called CEO and Board of Directors and major Shareholders.

So given the fact that a tiny minority is in control of a majority of what society produces and what to do with the profits. It should leave no wonder why those in that position decide to pay themselves 300+ times more than their average paid employee. They deserve it since they decide what society is like.

So how do these two ways of thinking about capitalism relate to our problem (identified above)?

It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price. So poor people are automatically and fundamentally disadvantaged from the start due to the nature of markets.

So the question is why do the poor not have the cash to pay the highest price?

The evidence is clear: being born into a wealthy family affords you opportunities unmatched by those stupid enough to be born into a low income family. Those who escape low income are the exception, not the rule and do not represent the average scenario for a person born into a low income household.

But the question remains: do these families deserve being low income? In some cases one might argue yes. But in most cases? That's really impossible to make a legitimate judgment on that.

And do the uber-wealthy families deserve their wealth? If by deserve you mean paid themselves high salaries from the profit their employees produced, then yes, they deserve it. But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves. No human is so talented as to legitimately earn 80 billion in a lifetime.

And this is precisely what capitalism is. So yes: Capitalism plays a major role in creating the economic reality across the globe whether you think people deserve their lot in life or not. Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed and the economic realities are created, including abject poverty and millions of deaths each year over pennies a day.

We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce

Which is why the Edsel has been the best selling car in the world, for over 50 years in a row.

It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price.

If only someone would come up with a store where people could find a wide variety of products, at lower prices. They could call it WalMart.
I bet they'd make a bunch of money.
Of course, idiots would whine that they made money and that it's not fair.
And then other idiots, we call them liberal politicians, would fight to keep these stores out of poor minority areas because.....because those idiots don't understand markets or economics.

But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves.

That's why losers whine about successful people. Because it's easier than building your own success.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.

All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.

You believe capitalism plays a small role (at best) in creating the problems of society: namely how property, goods and services are distributed. For if we think about the problem, it is in that what is required to eek out a decent living is not being distributed to those who need it most.

What is capitalism and what role does it actually play in this problem?

Capitalism is often associated with markets. And markets distribute goods according to the highest payer.

We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits. That extremely tiny sector is called CEO and Board of Directors and major Shareholders.

So given the fact that a tiny minority is in control of a majority of what society produces and what to do with the profits. It should leave no wonder why those in that position decide to pay themselves 300+ times more than their average paid employee. They deserve it since they decide what society is like.

So how do these two ways of thinking about capitalism relate to our problem (identified above)?

It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price. So poor people are automatically and fundamentally disadvantaged from the start due to the nature of markets.

So the question is why do the poor not have the cash to pay the highest price?

The evidence is clear: being born into a wealthy family affords you opportunities unmatched by those stupid enough to be born into a low income family. Those who escape low income are the exception, not the rule and do not represent the average scenario for a person born into a low income household.

But the question remains: do these families deserve being low income? In some cases one might argue yes. But in most cases? That's really impossible to make a legitimate judgment on that.

And do the uber-wealthy families deserve their wealth? If by deserve you mean paid themselves high salaries from the profit their employees produced, then yes, they deserve it. But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves. No human is so talented as to legitimately earn 80 billion in a lifetime.

And this is precisely what capitalism is. So yes: Capitalism plays a major role in creating the economic reality across the globe whether you think people earned their lot in life or not. Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed and the economic realities are created, including abject poverty and millions of deaths each year over pennies a day (malaria medicine, basic nets, anti-diarrheal medicine etc.)

Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed

And socialism is the system through which no goods are distributed.

Hey, did you hear the one about the socialist paradise (Venezuela) with the toilet paper shortage.
I'm glad they don't have mean capitalists down there making money by selling tp.
Because that would be bad.

 

[georgephillip]

What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.

Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.

Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.

First you'll have to list what you call "corruption." I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.

"If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.

"It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.

"But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider

 

[bripat9643]

"Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.

"The war powers also authorized the project.

"The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynching blacks was also very popular in Tennessee during the same time period. Are you going to claim that it's moral to lynch black people?

Also, being constitutional and being moral are two different things. I don't agree that it's constitutional. I'm not going to get into that discussion. But even if it was that still wouldn't make it moral.

Eliminating malaria and providing electricity to millions of consumers made it moral.

So if I murdered a million people and took all their money and then used it to build a damn to produce electricity, it would be moral?

Is that really what you're trying to say?

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.

First you'll have to list what you call "corruption." I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.

"If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.

Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one, and they all stink.

It doesn't matter what all the ignorant rubes on the street believe. If there's corruption, it's a fact of reality that can be demonstrated, or it isn't. If you don't have proof of this "corruption," then your claim is horseshit.

"It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.

"But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider

Most things that are "generally assumed" are pure horseshit. You obviously have no evidence of any "corruption."

 

[dnsmith35]

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.

Have you ever thought about the real difference between Fascism and Socialism? It isn't just the difference between government ownership and government control, which existed in Fascist states like Germany and Italy during the 30s and 40s. The real difference in the overt attempts to control other states by conquering them. Even the Soviets did not overtly go out of their sphere to conquer other countries. Both were socialist by the definition of socialism.

Dictionary


so•cial•ismˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm(n.)
1.
a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.

2.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.​

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.

Capitalism is not a social program, but it does produce sufficient wealth and prosperity for the government to fund social programs for the needy, something neither socialism ror communism can do, and especially a state using LVT as its principle tax..

Britpal -

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.

Correct.

 

[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.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png

Your tale needs five years of backstory.
Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004

"from Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?

Have you noticed that in spite of the fraud, it was the rising price to value which killed the housing industry? Did the fraud help? I suspect it did, but not to the degree you suggest.

 

[georgephillip]

First you'll have to list what you call "corruption." I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.

"If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.

Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one, and they all stink.

It doesn't matter what all the ignorant rubes on the street believe. If there's corruption, it's a fact of reality that can be demonstrated, or it isn't. If you don't have proof of this "corruption," then your claim is horseshit.

"It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.

"But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider

Most things that are "generally assumed" are pure horseshit. You obviously have no evidence of any "corruption."

"Goldman Sachs is denying that it 'bet against its clients' when it changed its position in the housing market in 2007.

"But the reality is that is exactly when they did and a lot of things that are even worse than that.

"The corruption at Goldman Sachs is very deep and very entrenched, but they will never be fully investigated because they have such close ties to the U.S. government."

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider