Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Contumacious]

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

It depends.

If the welfare state politicians discover that there are a significantly higher number of fans in Colorado than Washington and that they are able to greatly increase their chance of getting elected, then they will demand that the NFL make the broncos touchdowns be worth 50 points each.
.

 

[Indeependent]

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

Darn! The losing team should be paid!
Wait a moment! They ARE paid!

 

[GISMYS]

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

darn! The losing team should be paid!
Wait a moment! They are paid!

the "liberal" answer is not to even keep score,just say no one lost so no one will cry!!! === you wimps!!! Lol

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Flush all the Democrats first.

 

[gnarlylove]

#1 problem is Big Money in politics. Each Congress member is suggested to fundraise 5 hours a day. Granted their work-week is 3 days usually, they have to talk to people with money. And most people with money want more money and that means vote Republican. But what it really mean with all this money is the public interest, the public good looses to private interests almost everytime. If you made a deal to receive a cool 200,000 dollar contribution from a coal company, by-god they expect you to honor that money and vote coal every change you get. Now there is many loopholes that makes no requirements of such voting but we'd have to be blind to not see it happening. Take gun legislation and 80% of the public approved it but it wouldn't pass. Why? NRA is good at what they do. Why? Money and power. Another example of the crafty NRA is in last years recall election in Colorado where Democrats lost seats despite public opinion favoring the Democrats on this issue.

That is the #1 issue ruining democracy and turning our America into "the Rich's America" aka PLUTOCRACY!!! Top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth including assets.

Solution?
Public financing of elections plain and simple. Also repealing Citizen's United and striking down McCutheon V. Alabama, a case loosening campaign contributions.

Without this how can our government serve the constitution which clearly notes the people give the power and that all people are equal. "Money as a form of speech" is terminating equality out in the open! The representatives are more concerned about staying in office and their personal opinions. The pubic is a vehicle to stay elected but the public has much less to do with their decision making than it should. Their decision making should be to 100% represent the voices of their constituency. We lost this ideal long ago though. The Zapatistas have got it right.

 

[gnarlylove]

To reduce inequality the answer is simple: any CEO of a minimum wage operation like fastfood, wal-mart and all those chains we see across America can afford to pay a living wage. 10 bucks is nice but if we really want genuine equality (which most is drowned out or muddled by all the money in politics and media) we would pay a wage where people are not required to go into debt. In 2011 the median household debt was well over their household income at 75,000! This is what makes the rich so much richer: utter dependency. We should start at 10 and work our way up gradually to 15 over the course of 3-6 years. I means for McDonalds employees to be guided to welfare is showing that the CEO and Board of Directors want profits over people.


Propoganda and misinformation/media bias is another threat to democracy. Telling the news as a form of entertainment usually intended to rile people up into anger and action is not how information should be delivers. If we all work with different pieces of info, how can we expect to agree and make decisions that do good for humanity? Well, right now our interests are not necessarily the public good but how can we grow the economy and offer more choices to more people. I vehemently disagree with this approach and see here for the answer.

 

[Indeependent]

To reduce inequality the answer is simple: any CEO of a minimum wage operation like fastfood, wal-mart and all those chains we see across America can afford to pay a living wage. 10 bucks is nice but if we really want genuine equality (which most is drowned out or muddled by all the money in politics and media) we would pay a wage where people are not required to go into debt. In 2011 the median household debt was well over their household income at 75,000! This is what makes the rich so much richer: utter dependency.

Propoganda and misinformation/media bias is another threat to democracy. Telling the news as a form of entertainment usually intended to rile people up into anger and action is not how information should be delivers. If we all work with different pieces of info, how can we expect to agree and make decisions that do good for humanity? Well, right now our interests are not necessarily the public good but how can we grow the economy and offer more choices to more people. I vehemently disagree with this approach and see here for the answer.

Equality for workers is not a good idea.
I go into stores where there are shelf stockers who have various levels of savvy.
Some are incredibly helpful with where items are, if something will be discounted at the register and will even take notes on an item to submit a Purchase Order.

 

[gnarlylove]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.

I think if all humans were given similar opportunities, encouragement, love and security that we would expect to see the most productive society. But by your logic its good like it is. That must mean you have never had to decide between food or electric. Without ever having been homeless (or at least camped for extended periods) you can never know what you really value in the same way if you don't know any short people, you can't know any tall people either. Having wealth requires having not ha wealth to fully understand what your wealth means. I doubt you have a clue about what your wealth means other than it sustains your life.

Your low sample set (you are the only sample) says very little for how society should operate. Our meritocracy is really absurd which is the idea that people earn where they deserve to be in society, whether at the bottom or the top--everyone gravitates to their natural worth. Want to know why?
Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success

 

[dblack]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.

That's not what I'm saying. Equal rights under the law is a crucial foundation of a free society and we reject any kind of class system that attempts to violate that. That's not in dispute. What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.

 

[Contumacious]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.

I think if all humans were given similar opportunities, encouragement, love and security that we would expect to see the most productive society. But by your logic its good like it is. That must mean you have never had to decide between food or electric.

Been there, done that, got the tea shirt.

Didn't like.

I ate spaghetti noodles and Prego sauce EVERY FUCKING DAY while in college.

I did it, so can you.

Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.

.

 

[gnarlylove]

This basic idea of a meritocracy sounds great and support for such a system is in all the water we drink so it's unlikely you can even remotely recognize the problems with it. This isn't about me Contumacious and your remarks offer no information. It's just you promoting yourself, how surprising. Gigantic egos tend to render the self incapable of understanding obvious truths because it reduces the power of you ego. Like I'm not employed, what they hell do you know about my job (or you accuse me of a lack of one)? You may have eat poorly through college but I didn't because I worked sometimes two jobs and helf the maximum amount of credits. I don't need your damned ego accusing me of just dumb shit that comes from your deeply seated odium for your fellow man. But this ins't about whether your upset I have a job or not, this is about fundamental US policy. Dragging your dick on the board and smearing pre-cum has no value. The idea of a meritocracy is good in paper only.

I forgot to post the link so if you care click here to watch the short video on why meritocracy is not really the best we can do. We should do better but I bet living in a world where you can't trample people underfoot because they are poor/homeless/unemployed would shock you. Having to treat people with dignity regardless of status causes your internal anger to skyrocket. Having been homeless, I can assure you everyone I met in similar circumstances had more skill and innovation in their ass hairs than your whole body. If you were found without your precious money you'd be without the skills to survive. That's not someone I care to take advice from.

 

[gnarlylove]

What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.

We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.

We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!

 

[itfitzme]

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

It depends.

If the welfare state politicians discover that there are a significantly higher number of fans in Colorado than Washington and that they are able to greatly increase their chance of getting elected, then they will demand that the NFL make the broncos touchdowns be worth 50 points each.
.

Completely meaningless and ignorant comments adding nothing to the convorsation except hyperbole.

 

[itfitzme]

The Census Burea keeps stats on poverty here

Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

 

[Londoner]

Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.

Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay people enough to survive, much less meet the demand requirements needed by Main Street. You can tell all those people to get better jobs, but you can't simply get rid of Walmart jobs, or the workers who inevitably fill them. At some point you have to look at the structural flaw of an economic system which does not pay its workers enough to consume. This means that those workers will likely assume massive debts and draw heavily on government services. Henry Ford had it right. If you don't pay your workers enough to buy what they produce, your economy eventually dies from a lack of demand, which comes after the consumer self-destructs trying to borrow the money that never trickled down. At some point capitalism's drive for ever cheaper labor turns into a demand crisis, one that is inevitably fixed by a crippling expansion of credit.

 

[dblack]

What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.

We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.

We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!

Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right, with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.

Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.

 

[Bombur]

What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.

We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.

We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!

Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.

Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.

Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?

What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?

Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.

 

[dblack]

We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.

We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!

Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.

Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.

Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?

What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?

Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.

Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.

 

[Bombur]

Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.

Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.

Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?

What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?

Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.

Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.

Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?

Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.

 

[dblack]

Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?

What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?

Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.

Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.

Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?

Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.

Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.