Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Excuse me ding dong,

what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.

Ask your comrades in the former KGB.

.

We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.

If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living. Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.

The rich are not your friend, Amigo

Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.

In other words, you devoted the vast majority of your productive life to sucking up scraps tossed from Master's table, and now want applause?FUAY

 

[dnsmith35]

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Chomsky started out a poor man. His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range. Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.

It was great when Republicans did that.

Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.

We can do better now, with 12.4% of our lifetime earnings.

Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.

It was great when Republicans did that.

Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.

Nixon!

 

[georgephillip]

We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.

If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living. Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.

No, the fed must go. They were created , and are populated , by left wing extremists.

.

Would you care to name one?

 

[dnsmith35]

No, the fed must go. They were created , and are populated , by left wing extremists.

.

Would you care to name one?

I did not say that. Here is my post.http://www.usmessageboard.com/9269551-post4516.html

 

[crisismangement]

Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Hope you get that point REAL soon

I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit, a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.

I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.

Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:LOL: This is rich! Here is the puppeteer of several sock puppets calling me a sockpuppet. Way to go numbnut

 

[crisismangement]

]Socks waste all our time.

Yeah, you sure do numbnut.

 

[dnsmith35]

I think it is time for the moderators to do an IP check.

 

[crisismangement]

What is the matter Mr. Phillips? Did we embarrass you when you were outed?

 

[Unkotare]

Chomsky started out a poor man. His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range. .

P.T. Barnum and Bob Guccione made a lot of money too.

 

[Contumacious]

No, the fed must go. They were created , and are populated , by left wing extremists.

.

Would you care to name one?

HUH?

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto 1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

.

 

[georgephillip]

Would you care to name one?

HUH?

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto 1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

.

There's no doubt the Fed qualifies as a central bank, but it's not clear that it's under democratic (state) control:

"'Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.' Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

“'The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.' The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

Do you have any idea what the Rothschid brothers meant by "the tremendous advantage that capiral derives from the system..."

Famous Quotations on Banking

 

[sealybobo]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

 

[sealybobo]

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

 

[JT8691]

If incomes were equal what would be the incentive for new innovations?

What would be the incentive to start up new businesses that help society?

 

[sealybobo]

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?

The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace. The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesn’t work. Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us. The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,”stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.”
Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs. The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws. Labor laws and don’t forget unions. New Deal, FDR. The rich called him a traitor to his class.
When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

 

[sealybobo]

If incomes were equal what would be the incentive for new innovations?

What would be the incentive to start up new businesses that help society?

No one said all incomes should be equal.

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

Your business has to benefit society. If you have a great product and don't need help/workers then cool, but if you do you have to pay American workers a fair wage, and you can no longer hire illegals like you and Mitt Romney did. They wouldn't stay here if no one was hiring. Right?

Anyways, your question tells me you need to start over from Politics 101 and re educate yourself. Either you are rich or you are I don't really mean crazy I mean stupid.

 

[Fishlore]

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?

I can't find the questions. I'm new here and the board is difficult for me to navigate. Send me the questions PM and I will be happy to answer them.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are. Russia is nothing like a libertarian government. I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot. He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property. That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so. They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority. Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.

 

[dnsmith35]

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?

The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace. The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesn’t work. Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us. The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,”stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.”
Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs. The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws. Labor laws and don’t forget unions. New Deal, FDR. The rich called him a traitor to his class.
When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

You are preaching to the choir when you argue to me about regulation. I have always been for regulation of business and industry, without which we would have a real major issue fairness in society.

Beyond that you have several comments which are simply untrue. I am not a conservative, I am liberal, JUST NOT LEFT WING EXTREME, as some on this thread are. Your contention that labor has "the power" to organized into unions may be true, but the majority of labor in the US chooses NOT TO HAVE THEM. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized and for good reason. The government has taken over the role of unions in so far as fairness and safety rules in the work place. Union usefulness has just about run its course in the US. However in 3rd world labor markets the labor revolution has not yet taken root, and that is where unions can still be useful to society. In addition protectionism against the big bad foreign competition does the US labor force more harm than good and globalization is here and will be here whether you like it or not. Also, your concept of conservatism is warped. Conservatives are the ones who WANT PROTECTIONISM and the status quo rather than globalism, and it is we liberals (not left wingers) who want to do business with the world such that ALL HUMANS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE. The platitudes you throw out are a reflection of the propaganda sources you read or listen to, and do not reflect reality in the Industrialized world.