Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal.

Of course they aren't. Duh.

I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.

But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.

Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe." So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.

The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.

But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false.

Not at all.

Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts.

Yeah, we could probably get rid of 80% of the EPA.

 

[P@triot]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal.

Of course they aren't. Duh.

I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.

But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.

Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe." So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.

The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.

Considering water is processed, distributed, and paid for at the local level [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION], why exactly do you need the federal government and the EPA???

I always know when someone is unqualified to discuss U.S. politics when they site local issues (water, police, fire, etc.) as their reason for supporting communism at the federal level...

 

[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.

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

My first inclination would be to seriously consider the possibility of a Second Constitutional Convention that would decide if corporations are people. I'm not sure if anything can be done about extreme income inequality without radical campaign finance reform, and corporations own the present day political market place. Where would you suggest we start if dozens (or hundreds) of DC incumbents were to ever lose their jobs in a single news cycle?

 

[georgephillip]

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

How about a rematch next week in Denver?

I'm sure you noticed the level playing field and the ratio of regulators to players (7:22)

Professional athletics might be the only meritocracy we have.

 

[P@triot]

You realize you are saying humans are not equal.

Of course they aren't. Duh.

I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.

But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.

Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe." So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.

The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.

In other words, gnarly here is too fuck'n love to actively pursue is own private pursuits - so he would rather petition government to force others to do what he himself is too fuck'n lazy to do...

See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with. You don't have that luxury with the federal government. Better still, the beauty of the free market is that you can build your own business and do it "right". If a company is providing clean water, you can build your own company that sells clean water.

The one caveat - it requires you to get up off your useless, lazy ass. Something liberals aren't willing to do.

 

[P@triot]

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

How about a rematch next week in Denver?

I'm sure you noticed the level playing field and the ratio of regulators to players (7:22)

Professional athletics might be the only meritocracy we have.

We had the most perfectly leveled playing field in the history of the U.S. until the rise of the cancer known as liberalism. Now the playing field is completely slanted and fucked up. And your "solution" is to slant it and fuck it up further...

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?

"This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.

"Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.

"More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."

Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org

Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.

 

[georgephillip]

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

How about a rematch next week in Denver?

I'm sure you noticed the level playing field and the ratio of regulators to players (7:22)

Professional athletics might be the only meritocracy we have.

We had the most perfectly leveled playing field in the history of the U.S. until the rise of the cancer known as liberalism. Now the playing field is completely slanted and fucked up. And your "solution" is to slant it and fuck it up further...

I'm not sure what historical period you're referring to.
Are you?

 

[Bombur]

I was looking at The Economist this morning. It was for a week in December, if my recollection serves me. The GDP growth for China compared to the developed economies was trememdous.

Numerous economic indicators point to China entering the global market in 1998-2000 as being the single turning point that lead to today's anemic economy.

The problem, I believe, is simply absolute advantage as the standard of living for China's workforce is so much lower that the developed countries. What has been going on is that while China's standard of living increases, the developed economies standard of living necessarily decreases. It isn't going to change until they meet somewhere in the middle.

There are certainly other independent issues that are occurring. That absolute advantage issue is a big one.

The US has benefited greatly from the productivity gains made in China. The problem is not that the US has benefited it is that China has subsidized this benefit at the cost of US production and Chinese consumption. When a nation has large trade imbalances to the positive that are maintained by capital outflows they are forgoing consumption today. Eventually they have to start consuming and getting paid back for those capital outflows.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?

"This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.

"Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.

"More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."

Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org

Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.

If the government is involved, then it isn't "sharing." It's taking.

 

[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.

Flush all the Democrats first.

Both parties depend on the same 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. Why would you defend either one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?

"This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.

"Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.

"More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."

Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org

Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.

Public banks? Awesome!
Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.

 

[bripat9643]

Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.

No, they obviously don't work. According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment. You can't have both. There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.

That is correct.

However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.

High interest rates (set by central bank) do not mean high inflation. In 1982 the inflation was dropping like a stone (google "disinfaltion"), and that was goal was being achieved trough high unemployment.

Excuse me, I meant we had both high unemployment and high inflation. We also had high interest rates - a triple whammy. That's what the "misery index" referred to.

Inflation reached double digits at the end of 70s (blue line). To bring it down Fed sharply raised interest rates (green line). That caused a recession, raised unemployment, and as result, inflation started to drop. When Fed decided that the economy has suffered enough, it dropped the interest rates and the economy recovered quickly.

"It started to drop," but it still remained high while unemployment was sky high. I recall it very distinctly because I was unemployed at the time.

That event didn't contradict Keynes at all.

It sure as hell does because Keynes says that inflation relieves unemployment, but after that recession both unemployment and inflation came down. They should have gone in opposite directions, according to Keynes.

Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.

No, they haven't. What they have had is high natural rate of unemployment (google NAIRU), i.e. the rate that can't be lowered w/o rising inflation. That thing varies between societies.

ROFL! Where does Keynes ever refer to "natural unemployment?" Why should it be higher for one society than another? Keynes has no explanation.

 

[bripat9643]

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.

I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.

So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.

My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?

I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.

Bitcoin is a scam because it's not backed by anything. For now investing in bit coin is a fad. That's the only reason the stock is up. Once people realize it's a worthless currency, it will collapse. Any viable alternative currency has to be backed by gold or silver. that's why government will never allow such a currency. Government doesn't want competitors for its worthless fiat money. Nobody would use it if they had an alternative.

 

[bripat9643]

#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.

#1 problem is Big Money in politics.

#1 problem is Big Government controls so much of the economy that it is worthwhile donating money to these assholes. Shrink government by 80% and we could ignore the clowns in DC.

Getting money and corruption out of government would be like getting wet out of water.

 

[Indeependent]

Is Bitcoin worse than an Amazon Gift Card?

 

[dblack]

Do think replacing money and individual economic freedom with state mandate would produce more, or less rigidity?

No I'm not saying that we should therefore chuck money. But if you think money is just another way for us to be equal, that's only true on an idealist level. Given the money is used as speech, those with less of it naturally have less speech. The way this plays out leads to greater inequality.

Can money produce less inequality? Yes and it did for much of the 20th century. I don't deny it does today on a case by case basis but don't go hiding your eyes to the fact that money is a tool and is used to control. This control is not their right to exercise but it's done anyway for whatever justification you want to slapdash on there.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to inequality, increasing or otherwise. That's what I was trying to come to terms with with [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION] - whether the complaint is the inequality itself, or that the inequality is unwarranted or the result of a skewed system. If the complaint is that our system produces unjust inequality, I'm fairly sympathetic to that view, though I suspect we'd still disagree on the causes and solutions.

But unequal economic power, in general, is a good thing in my view. The beauty of economic freedom is that it allows us to distribute that power voluntarily (and deliberately unequally) according to the wishes of everyone who earns and spends money. We give money (ie economic power) to the people who are using it in ways we approve of.

I'm not sure today's 'moderate socialists' have given much thought to how fundamental economic freedom is. If we don't have control over our personal economic decisions, over how we earn and spend our money, all other freedoms are moot. If the state controls your money, they control you. Period.

I do not support state sponsored socialism as the halmark of equality or economic freedom. But to think economic freedom leads to greater freedom is a bit convulated and can indeed be more restrictive than liberating. If you want to make this claim again, please first visit this TED talk I have referred to many times.

I'm familiar with the 'paradox of choice' concept. I'm not sure how it applies to my argument. I'm not advocating for a multitude of consumer choices. I'm arguing for freedom in making economic decisions, decisions like how much money you're willing to work for, how to pay for your health care, or how to save for retirement, for example. We have a heavily interventionist government that seeks to override these kinds of personal decisions routinely 'for our own good' with intrusive regulation. The problem is, such regulations are often more for the good of the lobbyists who write them than the are for the people they claim to protect. In any case, I'm advocating for the general freedom to decide for ourselves what advances our 'own good'. There's no need for government to make those decisions for us.

 

[dblack]

I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.

So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.

My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?

I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.

Bitcoin is a scam because it's not backed by anything. For now investing in bit coin is a fad. That's the only reason the stock is up. Once people realize it's a worthless currency, it will collapse. Any viable alternative currency has to be backed by gold or silver. that's why government will never allow such a currency. Government doesn't want competitors for its worthless fiat money. Nobody would use it if they had an alternative.

Bitcoin is 'backed' in the same way gold or silver are. These metals don't carry value because of their usefulness. They have value because of their rarity, and because of a general consensus to use them as currency.

 

[dblack]

I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.

Unfortunately they are not. See Businessweek to see the details of how wealth is naturally advantaged and is cornering the market.

Let me rephrase that. I see great promise if they can remain free of centralized control by compulsive state governments. And I think that is still a very real possibility.

 

[dblack]

See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with.[/B]

This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.