Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

True.

Of course no one said it was.

What a hike in the minimum rate one can pay labor is, IS A DEMONSTRATION OF A MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PRODUCTION, OKA: The irrational form of collectivism known as socialism, which turns into communism, as the socialist seek more stringent controls over production, in the inevitable rationalization that the reason the socialist policy failed is that they lacked sufficient control.

If you're looking for a first class demonstration of that HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES! Simply tune into the State of the Coup speech tonight by Obama the Great.

 

[Bombur]

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property? How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?

Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.

No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.

Understand the difference?

 

[Bombur]

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

True.

Of course no one said it was.

What a hike in the minimum rate one can pay labor is, IS A DEMONSTRATION OF A MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PRODUCTION, OKA: The irrational form of collectivism known as socialism, which turns into communism, as the socialist seek more stringent controls over production, in the inevitable rationalization that the reason the socialist policy failed is that they lacked sufficient control.

If you're looking for a first class demonstration of that HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES! Simply tune into the State of the Coup speech tonight by Obama the Great.

So it isn't communism BUT IT LEADS TO IT SO WATCHOUTYO!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should our incomes be equal?

We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.

Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.

Income equality doesn't mean everyone makes the same amount of money. It means that base rates rise equally. If incomes for the top 1% have risen by 60% across the board, then middle incomes should be rising by 60% as well, as should the minimum wages. In this way, everyone's buying power remains the same.

The idea that conservatives keep clinging to that is demonstratively false is that the top 1% are creating jobs. The top 1% are sitting on billions in capital at the moment and not using it to create jobs. They're not spending it or investing it.

If the bottom 40% had more income, they'd be spending it. And that would create demand for products. And, assuming the products are manufactured in the US, that will create jobs.

But as long as Americans buy cheap goods from China, the only jobs they'll be creating are minimum wage retail jobs, while the manufacturing sector in China and other third world countries continues to expand.

You want a wage structure that hands out raises to the least productive workers at the same rate as the most productive ones? How stupid can you be?

Wait, I bet you still think workers get COLA increases, don't you? Didn't I already show you that doesn't exist in the real world? Is that really how stupid you want to be?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

Is that because you don't think the government declaring that people are incompetent is actually a means of ownership?

 

[Vox]

who cares about the world?

leftard brainwashers?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

True.

Of course no one said it was.

What a hike in the minimum rate one can pay labor is, IS A DEMONSTRATION OF A MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PRODUCTION, OKA: The irrational form of collectivism known as socialism, which turns into communism, as the socialist seek more stringent controls over production, in the inevitable rationalization that the reason the socialist policy failed is that they lacked sufficient control.

If you're looking for a first class demonstration of that HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES! Simply tune into the State of the Coup speech tonight by Obama the Great.

So it isn't communism BUT IT LEADS TO IT SO WATCHOUTYO!

Are you trying to say: "Thank you for the education?"

It's true that you should, but it looks like what you're doing is everything you can, to avoid saying it and remain something akin to credible.

You talk a lot of crap for someone that is so wrong, so often.

Have ya considered talking less and listening more? (Writing and reading in the case of this board)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

Is that because you don't think the government declaring that people are incompetent is actually a means of ownership?

​

 

[georgephillip]

Obama.

Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.

Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?



We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.

Capitalism may not be the worst thing ever, but it is among the least democratic institutions ever invented as it requires its workers to check their democratic rights at the front door and submit to a top-down totalitarian management style endorsed by dictators from Mussolini to the current crop of Chinese authoritarians alike.

Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.

We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?

I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.

Why don't you?

Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.

The equivocation problem you mention could be one of the major reasons why we can't find common ground on curbing the power that private wealth exerts on the federal government today.

Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.

How is it possible to restrict the influence of corporations, some of which have annual revenues higher than the GDP of small countries, on private individuals, by minimizing the power of government? IMHO, we need to increase democratic constraints on corporations and the 0.1% of the population they empower. De Blasio's recent election on Wall Street's home field is a good example of how elections could turn out if every serious candidate had the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, for example.

Finally, "free" markets if such exist may provide consumers an opportunity to vote with their dollars, but the workers in capitalistic enterprises have little or no democratic say over how their labor will be compensated or distributed over time. We spend the majority of our adult waking hours working, and yet we're told our democracy ends at the work place door.

 

[Vox]

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

Communism never existed. What you are talking about is called socialism.

which is the first stage of communism, but it is still not communism per se. There is no state in communism at all - it is supposedly not needed and it can only be achieved universally in the whole world, can't exist when there are normal countries around ( which is understandable, given into consideration it's unnatural model for the society)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.

Conduit? Perhaps.

But that's not the reason. The reason is that this culture has long eschewed ETHICS. And CORRUPTION is the REASON for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. <reeducation camps>

Communism never existed. What you are talking about is called socialism.

which is the first stage of communism, but it is still not communism per se. There is no state in communism at all - it is supposedly not needed and it can only be achieved universally in the whole world, can't exist when there are normal countries around ( which is understandable, given into consideration it's unnatural model for the society)

​

Communism, as it is defined by ANY credible reference source, exists right now, in all of it's irrational, unsustainable glory right above the DMZ separating the SUSTAINABLE SOUTH KOREA from their pathetic, inbred cousins in NORTH KOREA.

Enough with the academic thesis lamenting 'what could be, if people weren't the only way to get to it'.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.

I've done it repeatedly so I doubt that you can understand.

By repeating political talking points that have no basis in reality? By arguing against the very economic theories that establish the justification for your own economic beliefs? By arguing for supply side economics?

I haven't repeated any talking points. You think so because of your bias. I argued against myself by supporting a smaller more efficient government and less spending?

 

[georgephillip]

What do you think it takes to be in the bottom 5%? What part time minimum wage job does one have to have to be in the bottom 5%? Let's pick on my first part time job that put me (as a fifteen year old kid) into the bottom 5%. Bagging groceries. Course I only bagged groceries for a few months before I was promoted to a bottom 10% job. But let's stick to the people who start out bagging groceries and never get a promotion from there for their entire lives.

Now, please explain to me why we should give a massive raise to someone who is bagging groceries part time?

$10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?

Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker. For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises. In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.

Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k. You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours. Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014. It went up a helluva lot more than 275%... So what happened? Easy: Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs. If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks. So they work the minimum and stop. You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"

According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent

FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/

 

[RandomVariable]

Why should our incomes be equal?

We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.

Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.

Would someone please define "work" for me?

 

[dblack]

Why should our incomes be equal?

We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.

Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.

Would someone please define "work" for me?

Force times displacement.

 

[georgephillip]

$10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?

Because you aren't their guardian or the morality dictator that decides for us all who deserves what and how much. THAT is much worse than any disparity between rich and poor. The uber rich these days are in global markets and corporations operate worldwide. Why do actors get $20 for a movie role? Or a basketball player so much? The market decided.

Yes, people should make more for their labor but it isn't going to happen until the economy picks up and we are going in the wrong direction. Borrowing, taxing and spending money is not how we create a vibrant and healthy economy.

"Economists continue to debate the extent to which minimum-wage laws reduce poverty, income inequality and/or overall employment. What’s clear, though, is that after a three-step increase in 2007-09, today’s minimum wage buys more than it did recently, but its real purchasing power is about where it was four decades ago — and below its late-1960s peak."

For some of us, morality makes a much better basis for law and markets than Adam Smith's Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others.

Some conservative slaves have always been suspicious of morality because the rich would have very little influence in a society where ethics trumps unbridled Ethical egoism

Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center

 

[georgephillip]

The Fed will make money on the MBS. A lot of the problems that happened had to do with large changes in value which would require private institutions to liquidate fast which is obviously problematic when everyone is trying to do the same thing.

MBS were rated incorrectly. Investors were running to the markets with bad information and based on multiple levels of market manipulation. A lot of blame to go around.

Do you find the following claim accurate?

"Our financial system—like our participatory democracy—is a mirage. The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds—much of it worthless subprime mortgages—each month. "

Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

The article is crap. Like I already said the Fed will make money on buying them.

To claim that trillions are being lent you basically have to ignore that what he is talking about is many small transactions. Something that has worked pretty well btw.

The article is about appealing to people's ignorance and fear of the unknown.

Point out any "fear" or "ignorance" in the following (if you can)

"The human species, led by white Europeans and Euro-Americans, has been on a 500-year-long planetwide rampage of conquering, plundering, looting, exploiting and polluting the earth—as well as killing the indigenous communities that stood in the way.

"But the game is up.

"The technical and scientific forces that created a life of unparalleled luxury—as well as unrivaled military and economic power for a small, global elite—are the forces that now doom us.

"The mania for ceaseless economic expansion and exploitation has become a curse, a death sentence.

"But even as our economic and environmental systems unravel, after the hottest year [2012] in the contiguous 48 states since record keeping began 107 years ago, we lack the emotional and intellectual creativity to shut down the engine of global capitalism.

"We have bound ourselves to a doomsday machine that grinds forward.

Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

 

[SwimExpert]

 

[RKMBrown]

A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.

HTH

BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property? How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?

Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.

No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.

Understand the difference?

No. You are quibbling over what % of my business the government takes. When they make me pay my employees more than they are worth that leads to taking more than I have, which is the same as taking ownership away. It's the same damn thing.

You are the guy who pays the mobster for protection and then tells his wife it was his idea. You are like the guy who watches a girl get raped and then says she asked for it.