Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

No it shouldn't. Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government. Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected. Has nothing to do with each other.

Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.

Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America. Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality. Nor is income inequality bad.

80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich. Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.

Can you prove 80% of US millionaires are first generation rich?
How many Americans who started off at the very bottom of the income ladder and reached the top quintile?
Increasing income inequality leads to a form of government known as oligarchy.
Oligarchy and Democracy have been in conflict for thousands of years.
When the richest one percent of the US voters decide by the size of campaign donations which candidates will receive their party's nomination in the general election, they are restricting your voice in government.

That's why the US is widely believed to have the best government money can buy.

Fidelity Survey Finds 86 Percent of Millionaires Are Self-Made

BOSTON -- Fidelity Investments® today released results of its fifth Fidelity® Millionaire Outlook, an in-depth survey analyzing the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households1. This year’s study found that 86 percent of millionaires are self-made and that their path to wealth, financial outlook and goals greatly impact their investment behaviors. In addition, millionaires’ outlook on the future financial environment is at its highest level in the survey’s history, underscored by their confidence in the stock market, as millionaires ranked domestic stocks their number one investment added in the last year.​

Your study seems to rely on self-reporting:

"Eighty-six percent of today’s millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up ('self-made'), while only 14 percent said they grew up wealthy ('born-wealthy')"

The picture at the apex of US wealth is significantly different and may be getting worse as far as creating new billionaires is concerned.

"The release of the latest Forbes 400 List of Americans is, once again, being billed as a triumph of self-made wealth.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison – all self-made – topped the list, once again. And Forbes heralds that fact that 'a record 70% of the Forbes listers are self-made.'

Yet their announcement obscures the fact that half of the top 10 on the Forbes list have inherited all or some of their wealth, making America’s billboard chart of opportunity look increasingly like the the lucky sperm club..."

"The rise of the heirs on the Forbes list signals a larger worry, however. America may not be able to create new wealth the way it has for the past 20 years.

"All of the forces that drove billionaire creation – strong economic growth, a 20-year-bull market, huge technological change and investment – are weakening.

"We will still create new billionaires, with the occasional Zuckerbergs keeping the flame alive.

"Yet preserved family wealth may well start eclipsing earned new wealth. It’s possible that we could be heading into a period like the 1930s, 40s and 50s, when most of the large wealth in America came from one of two places – oil and trust funds."

Are We Entering the Age of Inherited Wealth? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[The T]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.

It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?

The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.

The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.

Agree with a lot of that. And revolting due to wealth inequality DOES have a lot to do with firing people up about it.

A family might have everything they need, and are happy and secure, and are totally stable UNTIL they hear that "person X owns 40% of wealth" or whatever. Then the jealousy/comparisons kick in and before you know it there's a revolution. With the internet and such, facts about inequality are more prevalent than ever, and why we're seeing a lot of stir about things.

Nonetheless, the Dems - I believe - are just playing political games by getting these buzzwords going.

Who are they to fucking trust anyways? They too are as crony as any Republican. Al Gore - for pete's sake - is just as rich as Mitt Romney.

...And just as guilty for playing the PEOPLE for suckers.

 

[bayoubill]

history has shown that, near the end of their lives or following their deaths, the persons who accumulated massive fortunes have bequeathed most if not all of it to the public good...

and even when they instead gave it to their heirs, it didn't hurt the economy...


more to the point... government policies that impose onerous capital gains taxes discourage such capital holders from moving their money out from an under-performing enterprise and then putting it into an enterprise that holds promise to create new wealth for all involved...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).

Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.

.

Well it's my opinion is that capitalism is great however it tends to have a little flaw in that at the "end states" wealth will begin to pool and accumulate between a very few people (because money makes money, and once you hit a billion - as long as you're not a complete dimwit - you can make tens of millions a year with little to no effort).

This is why we have a scenario where there's 85 individuals who have more combined wealth than the bottom 4,500,000,000.

Again in absolutely no way am I saying those 85 are "evil" or they didn't work hard for their money (some did, some didn't), or that the money isn't rightfully theirs, I'm simply saying that humans are jealous by nature and if this gap continues to become more and more extreme PEOPLE WILL REVOLT and forcibly make those 85 redistribute. Just happens...

.

You are confusing capitalism with cronyism.

 

[Contumacious]

I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).

Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.

.

Well it's my opinion is that capitalism is great however it tends to have a little flaw in that at the "end states" wealth will begin to pool and accumulate between a very few people (because money makes money, and once you hit a billion -

.

There is NO relationship between CAPITALISM and he gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

.

 

[gnarlylove]

The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.

Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help

Image from this interesting read

To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).

Is inequality bad for economic growth?

 

[freedombecki]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.

It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?

The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.

The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.

Agree with a lot of that. And revolting due to wealth inequality DOES have a lot to do with firing people up about it.

A family might have everything they need, and are happy and secure, and are totally stable UNTIL they hear that "person X owns 40% of wealth" or whatever. Then the jealousy/comparisons kick in and before you know it there's a revolution. With the internet and such, facts about inequality are more prevalent than ever, and why we're seeing a lot of stir about things.

Nonetheless, the Dems - I believe - are just playing political games by getting these buzzwords going.

Who are they to fucking trust anyways? They too are as crony as any Republican. Al Gore - for pete's sake - is just as rich as Mitt Romney.

Al Gore isn't as rich as Mitt Romney. He may show an equality at the bottom line, but the way he got it was by engaging in a fantasy do-gooder scheme that lifted money from the pockets of the Europeans, and now they're so pissed off at him they won't even let his 650 misstatements in his thema/schema on AGW be read by any child in Europe nor the British Isles, for that matter.

After his power grab for presidency through calumny didn't work, he decided to dream up a nearly impossible-to-disprove Green-themed racket to make people feel good to give him as much money as he could rake in from his bargain with for-sale 'scientist' AGW pushers for a killing off gullible listeners, taken in by tripe cooked up by pretender scientists calling up other scientists to sign on to an omuerta scheme that would remove data to "prove" that AGW exists, and that people with money to burn could do something about it and save the world from its path to ultimate destruction for contributing sums to bolster Al Gore's fairy-tale life. Through it all, he lost his wife and family, associates mainly with other for-sale people, and now has encountered an EU that is mad as hell at him for telling all those little white lies for their cash and jewels, and making fools of them for believing him.

There are some nice things people can do for their fellow man--pick up roadside trash to beautify the world, bathe, take care of themselves, and best of all mind their own business which is engaged in honestly.

The hocus pocus of spending 500% of the world's money to eliminate mankind's paltry contribution to pollution in the skies which is less than seven thousandths of one percent when natural H2O processes are taken into consideration. Hiding a modicum of data from eras that disprove the AGW balderdash, makes it seem true, and drilling it home with what-to-do-about-its that all the world's resources for the next 50 generations to eliminate that small seven/1000th of one percent man-made contribution is simply just crazy.

As I said, we can improve the environment more by picking up trash along the roadsides and growing a garden.

 

[georgephillip]

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income equality" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.

Income equality is an economic impossibility;

Yes it is. And that's GREAT news in its own right.



Absolutely correct. Which makes the liberal clamor and railing against so-called "income inequality" that much less coherent.

This thread is arguing the current level of income inequality in the US represents a threat to our Republic

WHich is, of course, a silly and baseless absurd, ridiculous and very "liberal" "argument."

that is much greater than any Lenin, Hitler, or Stalin manufactured.

An even wilder set of absurd contentions: This is why (upon any serious study and reflection) the theses of modern American liberalism are uniformly revealed to be laughable.

How much US infrastructure did Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao manage to destroy?
How many US civilians did your authoritarian soul-mates murder, maim, and displace?
Do you chuckle at the prospect of Civil War 2.0 in the home of the fee and the land of the slave?

 

[georgephillip]

The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.

Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help

Image from this interesting read

To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).

Is inequality bad for economic growth?

For starters, I learned...

"Theory #1: High inequality leads to under-investments in education.

"This was an idea put forward by economist Joseph Stiglitz. Inequality of income leads to inequality of education. Lower-income kids end up in lower-quality schools and are less able to go on to college.

"The result: The workforce as a whole ends up less productive overall than it would be in a more equitable economy.

"But how do you prove this?

"It's true that wealthier families tend to spend more on educational materials — books, tutors, art and music lessons.

"And the gap in college completion rates between students in the top and bottom income brackets in the United States has grown over time (see chart).

"Growing inequality of income does seem to be leading to more inequality of education.

Is inequality bad for economic growth?

 

[dblack]

So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?

 

[georgephillip]

history has shown that, near the end of their lives or following their deaths, the persons who accumulated massive fortunes have bequeathed most if not all of it to the public good...

and even when they instead gave it to their heirs, it didn't hurt the economy...


more to the point... government policies that impose onerous capital gains taxes discourage such capital holders from moving their money out from an under-performing enterprise and then putting it into an enterprise that holds promise to create new wealth for all involved...

...like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps.

The rise of Finance Capitalism in the 21st century comes from a predatory profit without production ethic that predates Industrial Capitalism: "Finance can extract profits from any money income and stock of money - its profits are not limited to the fresh flows of value produced annually."

History also shows how some of the great European museums and cathedrals were paid for with American silver mined by American slaves.

Costas Lapavitsas Discusses the Financialization of Capitalism

 

[georgephillip]

So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?

FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.

 

[dblack]

So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?

FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.

I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to do about the dubious income inequality?

 

[deltex1]

The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?

 

[dblack]

The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?

Well, the NFL takes steps to share revenue between winning and losing franchises. But I hesitate to use that as an example for free markets. In sports, an exciting contest is the point. In the 'real world' results are the point - we want the best 'teams' to dominate, and the losers to find something else to do.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In this country everyone is guarantees equal opportunity, not an equal outcome.

To make it in this country as well as anywhere in the world, a person must get an education, learn a skill and work hard.

College degrees isn't a requirement. Some make it just fine without a high school diploma.

Famous, Rich, and Successful People Who Were High School or College Dropouts

 

[editec]

So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?

FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.

I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to do about the dubious income inequality?

Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.

Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity

1. AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or

2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.


Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.

There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.

Whiuch is the better of the two?

NUMBER 1

Why?

Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.

Why don't we do that?

We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.

 

[Bombur]

FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.

I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to do about the dubious income inequality?

Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.

Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity

1. AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or

2 By taxation which spread the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden csst of living down, like ppublic transuit, education and health care.

Those are the two avenues to fixing this problem.

There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.

Trade relations also matter.

 

[dblack]

In this country everyone is guarantees equal opportunity, not an equal outcome.

Yeah but 'opportunity' is a pretty fuzzy concept. Does someone with no money behind them have equal opportunity? What if they are genetically 'disadvantaged'?

 

[dblack]

FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.

I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to do about the dubious income inequality?

Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.

Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity

1. AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or

2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.


Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.

There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.

Whiuch is the better of the two?

NUMBER 1

Why?

Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.

Why don't we do that?

We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.

I think it's worth looking for ways to address the problem that don't put government in charge of dictating our personal economic decisions. Economic freedom is fundamental. If government is running the economy, they're running everything.