Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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

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

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

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

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

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

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

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

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

Do us all a favor and move to North Korea.

Let us know how awesome no capitalism is.

I wonder if you know or care how "awesome" capitalism "shocked" North Korea into the shit hole it is today?

"Lyuh Woon-hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.'

"He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

Lyuh Woon-hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mac1958]

.

I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.

.

 

[georgephillip]

#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.

Actually, it wouldn't be any harder than getting Christ out of the Constitution was two hundred and forty years ago. Exterminate the political influence of 21st century corporations and you've just eliminated 90% of all corruption in government.

 

[georgephillip]

.

I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.

.

This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:

"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.

"Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.

"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Illinois should go Red

"But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.

"Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?

"Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

"Because it works.

"In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.

"The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.

"More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.

"It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.

"In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet

Awesome, right?

Yes, your idiocy is awesome!

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.

 

[Bombur]

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?

The problem is, the graph, and those who calculate 'social mobility', fail to factor in choice, and failed to factor in the scale of mobility.

For example, Country A, a maximum wage of $100,000, and Country B has a max of $300,000, and two people both earning $20,000 a year.

Five years later, Person in Country A, is earning $60,000 a year, and person in Country B is earning $80,000, which has more social mobility?

In theory, the person in Country A has greater social mobility, because he's in the upper middle of the scale. Yet the Person in Country B, actually had the greater increase in wage, and is enjoying a greater standard of living.

The other aspect is that of choice. Back in the 90s, when I was in high school, I worked for minimum wage at a fast food joint. One day a lady showed up, and announced to us, that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again. She even told us the day in which she qualified, and sure enough, on that day she stopped showing up for work.

Does that graph include people like this? Of course. But does this person reflect an social economic system that prevents moving up the income scale, or does it rather show a choice by the individual to refuse to advance themselves?

That's a choice of the individual, not a problem with our economic system. If anything, our welfare, and social programs, have setup a system of incentives to encourage people to not advance up the income ladder, and then you use the resulting statistics to justify more of the same programs that caused those statistics.

Further, no one is denying Capitalism concentrates wealth.

What we do in fact deny, is that this is bad.

If I refuse to get an education, or get an education in something that has no value, or refuse to do what is needed to advance my career, and become more productive... I choose to not concentrate wealth. Back to the prior example of the lady who only worked long enough to get back on welfare. You do realize that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started out working minimum wage as a crew member? They are rich, because they worked to advance themselves, by choice. She'll be poor till she dies, by choice.

The reason people have nothing, is because they spent all my money, and didn't save and invest.

I call this the difference between the Pinball people, and the Beer Pong people.

This comes from the story of Warren Buffet. If you read about Warren Buffet, you'll find that when he was in High school, he worked a paper route. He saved up money from the paper route, and bought a PinBall machine. He placed the PinBall machine in a local business, where it earned more money. Buffet, invested his money, and made more money.

What do most people do? I can't speak for absolutely everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do, was to buy a keg of beer, and take it to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play Beer Pong. Thus they consume their money, and are broke.

That's the difference between the Beer Pong people and the PinBall people. That's why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor.

You realize that if you save, just a mere $100 a month, every single month from age 20, to retirement, you'll retire a millionaire (or close to it)? But people don't. They buy movie tickets, premium cable TV, smart phones, eat out at restaurants every day, and buy cars and other financial boat anchors that sink in value like a rock, and then complain how the wealthy the rich people are.

There's a reason for this. Actions have consequences. Even Michael Jackson, who made over a billion dollars in his career, was on the verge of bankruptcy just before his death. In fact, it was likely because of the stress of his world wide tour, and the pressure from all his creditors and lawsuits, that drove him to his death.

But the idea that somehow it's our economic system that is holding people back, is just absolutely ridiculous. Phil Robertson, regardless of anything else, is proof our system gives the most opportunity to the lowest of people. Here's a drunk, a complete drunk guy, living in a shack, whittling duck callers, and now he's a national brand, multimillionaire with his own TV show.

1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student, who bought a beat up pickup truck for $800, and a hand painted sign. Now he's a multimillionaire of an international company.

Allen Greenspan lost all his credibility. He claimed to believe in market principals, but in practice, he himself tried to direct and control the markets.

You can't say that "self regulating markets doesn't work" when *YOU* are the guy directing and regulating the markets. Sorry, false premise.

You are talking about entire nations worth of people. Your analysis is based on personal choice. So in essence you are saying that the entire nation has started to be lazy even though any measure of how much Americans work proves you wrong.

Once again nothing you say holds up to reality.

The alternative theory is that the markets are being impacted in some way which makes a lot more sense than the nonsense you just posted. At least try and make a good argument.

 

[P@triot]

Rot, it basically comes down to striking a balance between our freedoms and subordination/cooperation for the sake of non-zero sum games that benefit us all.

Again - communism. What "benefits us all". But let me ask you - who gets to decide what is "beneficial" for all of us? You? Barack Obama? How do you feel about electing me as the one who decides what is beneficial to us all? You still feel good about your plan in that case?

You're a typical "crunchy granola" liberal. You have this immature utopia where everyone rides a bicycle to work for mother earth and we all hug with long hair while not showering for weeks to preserve water.

You clearly are disgusted with me and so anything you read by me is filtered through a lens of hate or other raw emotions.

I'm not the least bit disgusted by you. I am, however, completely disgusted with your very immature utopian ideology.

I understand you don't like opposition and have a hard time dealing with people who disagree with you in a productive manner.

Actually, what I don't like is immature utopian ideology pissing on the Constitution. I have zero problems with opposition. In fact, I completely support your desire for communism. Further still, if I were president, I would actually assist you with building your communist ideology (one, I believe in every American have the freedom to live their on utopia, and two, I think it would be great to watch it collapse in front of the world so we could point & laugh and prove once again that liberal idiocy ends in collapse). But I would do it the right way. Liberals could actually have their communist utopia any time they want. They are just far too lazy to read the Constitution and far too stupid to figure it out.

you think I'm trying to ruin society but how can unity come to ruin society.

Ask the U.S.S.R. "how". Their unity collapsed society and ended with everyone (except the controlling elite of course) in extreme poverty in misery. If you think that one example doesn't count, then look at Cuba (extreme poverty and misery). If you think that two examples don't count, look at Cambodia (exreme poverty and misery). If you want to dismiss those as well, look at Vietnam, Ethiopia, Greece, etc., etc., etc. Your entire "unite" philosophy has a failure rate of 100% world wide. It has never worked.

If you failed to read my whole post, I encourage you to re-read it so you get a better idea of what I'm saying. I love liberty too and do not think this is a low priority.

Well you started off by saying that "freedom should not be our goal per se". That's pretty appalling if you ask me. And if you're an American, that's extremely appalling. Millions and millions of American men and women have died and suffered horribly for your freedom. For you to take it for granted like that and look at it as something that is no big deal is so disgusting.

But in truth, I didn't say I know what's best for everyone, just read the whole post.

Yes, you did. You're entire post was that "unity" (among other things) is best for America (above freedom).

It doesn't take much to realize unity on some level is essential in life. It's how we operate as a society. It's how our fiat money works--we all agree it has value. Encouraging unity over petty disagreements can help strengthen communities.

You're right! So lets unite over the U.S. Constitution. Lets unit over freedom! But nope - you Dumbocrats want to unite over communism. Sorry chief, ain't "uniting" with you over that shit. You want to unit over the U.S. Consititution and freedom - let me know. I'll be there with a hug and a granola bar for you.

E Plurbus Unum is on all of our coins and its Latin meaning "Out of the many is One." This is all I intended to say. Though we are diverse and all have unique characteristics, these differences are outweighed by the number of our similarities. From dust we come and dust we return. No one escapes this. So it makes sense to acknowledge the humanity in all people. Their ideas about the world are less important than the fact that they are in the world.

Really? So it was good that the Germans recognized the "humanity" in Adolf Hitler and ignored his ideas about the world? It was good that Italians recognized the "humanity" in Benito Mussolini and ignored his ideas about the world? Jospeh Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao Tse-Tung? Idi Amin?

There is very real, very awful, pure evil in this world. I will not recognize the "humanity" in evil and I sure as hell will not unit with it.

I stand firmly in the shadow of the U.S. Constitution and I will not budge. Not even an inch. If you want to join me, then you need to firmly stand here too. And then I will "unite" with you. Once you force the federal government to adhere to their 18 enumerated powers, and their 18 enumerated powers only, then I will compromise with you. I will not compromise on the U.S. Constitution or my freedoms protected in it.

 

[gnarlylove]

The capitalism love-affair is well documented. I know very few Americans are willing to even conceive of the idea capitalism is not perfect or at least not harmful. The truth is, "A ground-level, global-wide movement is afoot and has announced to the economic, media and political elite that they are on to their schemes. Accordingly, the plundering class and their protectors will no longer be afforded the luxury of insulating themselves (almost absent confrontation) within bubbles of privilege, bubbles of denial, bubbles of insularity." Punching A Hole In Bubbles Of Denial And Addiction: Late capitalism and its discontents of the American Autumn | A World Beyond Borders

No one is denying capitalism has brought about better life for billions of people. But what we refuse to believe is it is impenetrable, that no social structure could be better. We refuse to not try to better our lot by conceiving of better policy and a better system. Lovers of capitalism are not the bottom 20% of the world, why? Because they are getting the raw deal. We refuse to deny people the rights of safety, security, love, food. These are essential to well being and if humans neglect these traits they end up literally defective. More of us are catching on and spreading the world that "hey, capitalism isn't all that great anymore." We need something better. We grew up with the values of liberty and justice and by god I see tons of control and injustice from our racially divided prison system (and hence police force who arrest blacks 10 times the rate they do white drug offenders) to the workers in Singapore making 3 cents for a 75 dollar shirt. This is fucking ridiculous and no just person can stand to tolerate it.

Capitalism is not the be all end all of humanity. There are better policies (within capitalism) in the world today than the one's we have in America. To avoid change is to accept you are happy with your rank in society and that you don't care about the lot of the rest. Mere charity is by no means the solution to global problems of abject poverty. The problem is systemic. Capitalism needs the master/slave dialectic to exist so they can exploit people to produce cheap goods. This social structure is not the final stage of mankind and I think the worldwide movement is catching on to the bull shit shady deals done in private that is the hallmark of capitalism.

 

[Bombur]

The capitalism love-affair is well documented. I know very few Americans are willing to even conceive of the idea capitalism is not perfect or at least not harmful. The truth is, "A ground-level, global-wide movement is afoot and has announced to the economic, media and political elite that they are on to their schemes. Accordingly, the plundering class and their protectors will no longer be afforded the luxury of insulating themselves (almost absent confrontation) within bubbles of privilege, bubbles of denial, bubbles of insularity." Punching A Hole In Bubbles Of Denial And Addiction: Late capitalism and its discontents of the American Autumn | A World Beyond Borders

No one is denying capitalism has brought about better life for billions of people. But what we refuse to believe is it is impenetrable, that no social structure could be better. We refuse to not try to better our lot by conceiving of better policy and a better system. Lovers of capitalism are not the bottom 20% of the world, why? Because they are getting the raw deal. We refuse to deny people the rights of safety, security, love, food. These are essential to well being and if humans neglect these traits they end up literally defective. More of us are catching on and spreading the world that "hey, capitalism isn't all that great anymore." We need something better. We grew up with the values of liberty and justice and by god I see tons of control and injustice from our racially divided prison system (and hence police force who arrest blacks 10 times the rate they do white drug offenders) to the workers in Singapore making 3 cents for a 75 dollar shirt. This is fucking ridiculous and no just person can stand to tolerate it.

Capitalism is the be all end all of humanity. There are better policies in the world today than the one's we have in America. To avoid change is to accept you are happy with your rank in society and that you don't care about the lot of the rest. Mere charity is by no means the solution to global problems of abject poverty. The problem is systemic. Capitalism needs the master/slave dialectic to exist so they can exploit people to produce cheap goods. This social structure is not the final stage of mankind and I think the worldwide movement is catching on you the bull shit shady deals done in private that is the hallmark of capitalism

Capitalism of some form is by far the best way to run an economy. It isn't even remotely close.

The Capitalism versus socialism argument is essentially dead. What is still being talked about is the nature of the capitalist system. Sweden is a capitalist society but they have a lot of government involvement in their economy. Germany and Japan are capitalist even though they push pro-trade agendas.

The real discussion is about market economies and how modern nations use government to protect their economic and moral interests.

 

[gnarlylove]

I didn't even say socialism. Plus I bet your idea of socialism is fed on a diet of half truths and propaganda. Maybe not in which case great and I also think socialism as its practiced is not the best way to run an economy.

But we aren't trying to run an economy. We are human begins first. Consumers 2nd or even 10th. If consumer is your first identity then you are hooked by all the rest of the program capitalism offers. I admit it, I've loved and lived in it and it's certainly wonderful IF YOU HAVE MONEY. But if you happen to be born by geographic happenstance into poverty, the chances of leaving that poverty are low.

All we need to do is acknowledged capitalism has major flaws, as its practiced. And thusly we need to institute policy that allows us to address these problems. Everyone is so eager to put words into the mouths of "socialists" or "enemies of capitalism/freedom" but I am not offering black and white lines to choose from. These are results that capitalism has brought to the fore and we need to deal with them if we respect human dignty. People think this runs contrary to "economics" but the whole reason civilization exists is to participate in ever increasing non-zero sum games but if only the rich are winning the poor are loosing, this is not a non-zero sum game anymore. it's working in heavy favor of the wealthy elite and this is not economics, its slavery. Just because you are a cog and not a slave doesn't mean slavery should be dismissed. If you happened to be born in the ghetto in Chicago, you'd likely join a gang and follow this life since capitalism offers you little opportunity.

The point is we need to see the world from other people's shoes and refusing to acknowledge the extreme plight of the world's poor is injustice and runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that says all are equal. I've been homeless and its then when you realize with all the glamor around you you are digging through the trash so you don't starve. Thanks a lot capitalism! Again, let me remind you capitalism has done wonders for the world and no one is denying this.

 

[P@triot]

The capitalism love-affair is well documented. I know very few Americans are willing to even conceive of the idea capitalism is not perfect or at least not harmful. The truth is, "A ground-level, global-wide movement is afoot and has announced to the economic, media and political elite that they are on to their schemes. Accordingly, the plundering class and their protectors will no longer be afforded the luxury of insulating themselves (almost absent confrontation) within bubbles of privilege, bubbles of denial, bubbles of insularity." Punching A Hole In Bubbles Of Denial And Addiction: Late capitalism and its discontents of the American Autumn | A World Beyond Borders

No one is denying capitalism has brought about better life for billions of people. But what we refuse to believe is it is impenetrable, that no social structure could be better. We refuse to not try to better our lot by conceiving of better policy and a better system. Lovers of capitalism are not the bottom 20% of the world, why? Because they are getting the raw deal. We refuse to deny people the rights of safety, security, love, food. These are essential to well being and if humans neglect these traits they end up literally defective. More of us are catching on and spreading the world that "hey, capitalism isn't all that great anymore." We need something better. We grew up with the values of liberty and justice and by god I see tons of control and injustice from our racially divided prison system (and hence police force who arrest blacks 10 times the rate they do white drug offenders) to the workers in Singapore making 3 cents for a 75 dollar shirt. This is fucking ridiculous and no just person can stand to tolerate it.

Capitalism is not the be all end all of humanity. There are better policies (within capitalism) in the world today than the one's we have in America. To avoid change is to accept you are happy with your rank in society and that you don't care about the lot of the rest. Mere charity is by no means the solution to global problems of abject poverty. The problem is systemic. Capitalism needs the master/slave dialectic to exist so they can exploit people to produce cheap goods. This social structure is not the final stage of mankind and I think the worldwide movement is catching on to the bull shit shady deals done in private that is the hallmark of capitalism.

Capitalism is flawless. It's flawless because it is freedom. The employer is free to make what he/she feels is the best decisions for their business, the employee is free to work where they want. They are not "exploited" (that is just the desperate Dumbocrat battle cry to demonize through lies what they cannot demonize through facts) - they freely choose to work where they do and are compensated for their time. If they don't like it, they can quit any time they want and go work somewhere else. Better still, they are even free to quit their job and start their own business!

The reason we have the problems that we do is because we don't have capitalism. We have the government Dumbocrats unconstitutionally interfering with the markets and collapsing what ever they touch (see housing market, investment market, etc.).

 

[Bombur]

Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.

Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.

Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.

 

[gnarlylove]

Climate change denial, xenophobia, capitalism and empathy | uknowispeaksense

Makes an interesting point about this inability to acknowledge the plight of others. Whether we admit it or think about it or not, there are major injustices in a world today that flies in the face of our ideas of universal equality. This video helps demonstrate this.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g#t=158]RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilisation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[theHawk]

I didn't even say socialism. Plus I bet your idea of socialism is fed on a diet of half truths and propaganda. Maybe not in which case great and I also think socialism as its practiced is not the best way to run an economy.

But we aren't trying to run an economy. We are human begins first. Consumers 2nd or even 10th. If consumer is your first identity then you are hooked by all the rest of the program capitalism offers. I admit it, I've loved and lived in it and it's certainly wonderful IF YOU HAVE MONEY. But if you happen to be born by geographic happenstance into poverty, the chances of leaving that poverty are low.

All we need to do is acknowledged capitalism has major flaws, as its practiced. And thusly we need to institute policy that allows us to address these problems. Everyone is so eager to put words into the mouths of "socialists" or "enemies of capitalism/freedom" but I am not offering black and white lines to choose from. These are results that capitalism has brought to the fore and we need to deal with them if we respect human dignty. People think this runs contrary to "economics" but the whole reason civilization exists is to participate in ever increasing non-zero sum games but if only the rich are winning the poor are loosing, this is not a non-zero sum game anymore. it's working in heavy favor of the wealthy elite and this is not economics, its slavery. Just because you are a cog and not a slave doesn't mean slavery should be dismissed. If you happened to be born in the ghetto in Chicago, you'd likely join a gang and follow this life since capitalism offers you little opportunity.

The point is we need to see the world from other people's shoes and refusing to acknowledge the extreme plight of the world's poor is injustice and runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that says all are equal. I've been homeless and its then when you realize with all the glamor around you you are digging through the trash so you don't starve. Thanks a lot capitalism! Again, let me remind you capitalism has done wonders for the world and no one is denying this.

The spirit of the Constitution does not say that all are equal. It says that all are created equal. The people of those poor countries continue to be poor because they refuse to better themselves. Nothing is stopping them or holding them back, especially not capitalism or America.

 

[dblack]

I'm for freedom.

I'm sure you mean individual freedom. But when we ask ourselves was this the initial goal of humans who banded together in hunter-gather tribes and eventually created chiefdoms we find a different goal. It was survival. They were willing to subordinate to sometimes harsh treatment by chiefs and higher-ups so they had the security of food and protection in numbers.

I think this holds light for us today. Our goal should not be greater privacy or liberty per se, it should be survival first. Indeed we a race we fail at this daily. Millions die each year from easily preventable issues while billions suffering from the lack of basic human needs. The rest of us have move beyond the need for mere survival and recognize self-actualization and comfort/satisfaction as the goal. This is a natural step towards a healthy personhood. You might argue "If only we could get everyone to where we are. (ie more freedom)"

This is flawed however. We will never attain a time when no one is overtly exploited so long as we rely on cheap labor, a staple of capitalism. Wage labor has been synonmous with slave labor since its origins. While wage laborers are not strictly slaves, they are essential for the production rates we see with the costs we pay. I'm not saying capitalism is the worse idea ever, it has indeed improved the lives of billions.

Although individualism has brought many welcomed opportunities, it has also led harmful effects. For example, today more than ever people have lavish egos and it doesn't take a psycho-analyst to identify the problems with inflated egos. Our individualism has led to a loss of personal accountability so that for example, when we drive our car we never think about if we could bike or do better: we are doing what we feel like and as long as I can afford it that's all that counts.

This has resulted in environmental degradation on massive scales whether one affirms climate change or not (Michigan study found 50% of America was covered in forests, now only 10% remains). Anecdotally I've seen a resistance to responsibility, even an inability on the behalf of youths to know anything about nature or be able to live in nature without a supermarket. Having worked with teens in the Utah Desert and Colorado forests, I can say it takes weeks for kids to come to grips with basic survival principles. This has implications for all sorts of things with such huge emphasis on individualism over the classic public good. It reduces critical thinking skills because as long as you can fake it to make it, as is the strategy of many kids in school, there's no reason to actually learn it. I'm not saying kids don't learn but their interest are elsewhere (TV, social life, phone). And we have "no right" to think they should do anything that makes them less free.

Moreover, fallacies are rampant on TV and the nightly news. It's pathetic but very influential. I think this has a source in the entertainment transition to news and information in general. People avoid bad stuff and gravitate good stuff, this tends to not solve problems. These all come from the ceaseless emphasis of individual liberty. Turns out individuals don't always make the best decisions with the a lot of freedom. Don't construe this to mean I think that freedom is bad. It is good (and bad) within its context.

I'd say we need to strengthen our ideas about community, togetherness, unity (its on all our coins E Pluribus Unum) because we've seen the effects of refusing to agree: gridlocked congress and tensions are high. We are making little to no progress on solving national or global problems. This stems from individualism and the idea we all just need more freedom which trumps compromise.

So I challenge this goal of freedom and replace it with the goal of removing all barriers that prevent us from viewing one another as essentially the same. All lives are one life having come from the same source and are made up of the same material (star dust from billions of years ago).

Our appearances and thoughts help identify us but should not be our sole evaluation. Ignoring our infinite similarities in favor of our tiny differences made dramatic makes for a divided society--one that struggles to work together (not referring to the labor force). So long as everyone views everyone as essentially different, some totally separate entity, then there is no reason we should treat one another with sympathy, empathy, compassion or love. Such a radical vision of the sameness of humanity might inspire great strides in reducing inequality without ever having to make a policy change. Of course I think changing policy alongside this foundational outlook would be good. This speaks to the reality that attitudes structure our society and the way we treat one another.

We are all One and all deserve to be treated as we treat our self. This idea was first recorded in Tao Teh Ching and has been pronounced in all major religions yet we can't seem to acknowledge it. We prefer our overgrown egos to respect (I know I did for the longest time and still fight it today).

Interesting post. Though I think you're making several unwarranted assumptions that I'd like to address.

First, you seem to hold the common misconception that libertarians are libertines, or preoccupied with individual freedom as the ultimate value. I suppose some are, but it's not what drives the movement. I actually agree with most of what you have to say here regarding community and the dangers of the 'cult of the individual'. But the our values and goals as a society can be realized without resorting to force, and they should be. It's an aversion to the use of force that binds libertarian ideas, not a childish resentment of restraint. And it's the recognition that government, among all other social institutions, is granted a monopoly on force that prompts our desire to see it strictly limited.

Second, you seem to view the goals and values of society as synonymous with the goals and values of government, and that's where libertarians see things differently as well. Government is a tool that can be used to facilitate society, but it doesn't define it. Just as you believe that capitalism should not be the be-all-end-all of human society (and fwiw, I agree with that sentiment), neither should government.

Lastly, it might not be your view, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to equate a reluctance to use government to solve problems or pursue goals as a commentary on the importance of the problems or goals. They're not the same. Opposition to government welfare is not opposition to charity, for example, nor is it a dismissal of the serious problem of poverty. It's just an application of the idea that government is not the proper solution for all, or even most, of the problems we face as a society.

 

[P@triot]

Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.

Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.

Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.

What in the hell kind of "logic" is that? Kids were terminated under Joseph Stalin in the U.S.S.R. How many Jewish children were slaughtered under Adolf Hitler?

Nobody can control the stupidity or cruelty of parents. I know a guy who made all 3 of his sons do some serious labor (we're talking clearing lumber, gravel, etc.) in the bitter cold while he sat in a warm car eating donuts and watching them. Do you really believe your child labor laws "saved" those children? Hell, at least children got PAID for their labor before those laws. These children didn't even get paid. So tell me, how are those labor laws working?

You cannot regulate cruelty out of people. Children are going to be mistreated in any system (and they have).

Furthermore, I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws and regulations. I'm not an anarchist. I support minimum wage 100% (and again - as I've stated many times on USMB - not how it is handled, but I do support having it) for the basic principles that supply exceeds demand when it comes to labor. But the fact is - the federal government had no business getting into the banking business and forcing them to make risky loans.

The undeniable reality is, the free market (with a certain amount of regulation of course) is flawless because it will always balance itself out. The federal government is to blame for about 99.99999% of the issues we have with capitalism.

 

[Bombur]

Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.

Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.

Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.

What in the hell kind of "logic" is that? Kids were terminated under Joseph Stalin in the U.S.S.R. How many Jewish children were slaughtered under Adolf Hitler?

Nobody can control the stupidity or cruelty of parents. I know a guy who made all 3 of his sons do some serious labor (we're talking clearing lumber, gravel, etc.) in the bitter cold while he sat in a warm car eating donuts and watching them. Do you really believe your child labor laws "saved" those children? Hell, at least children got PAID for their labor before those laws. These children didn't even get paid. So tell me, how are those labor laws working?

You cannot regulate cruelty out of people. Children are going to be mistreated in any system (and they have).

Furthermore, I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws and regulations. I'm not an anarchist. I support minimum wage 100% (and again - as I've stated many times on USMB - not how it is handled, but I do support having it) for the basic principles that supply exceeds demand when it comes to labor. But the fact is - the federal government had no business getting into the banking business and forcing them to make risky loans.

The undeniable reality is, the free market (with a certain amount of regulation of course) is flawless because it will always balance itself out. The federal government is to blame for about 99.99999% of the issues we have with capitalism.

Child labor was common because of market pressures and desperation. The lesson of the past and present is not that people can be cruel but that markets can be inelastic and that markets can be short sighted. Especially when people are looking for money to feed their family.

The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have. In this case a lot of it comes down to bad information being used to make decisions. Investments were graded incorrectly by ratings agencies. Investors thought the investments were secured when they were not. Investors had really no idea what they were really buying. Valuations of homes were simply based on what other homes in the area were going for which doesn't take into account long term predictions of home prices or other changes in the economy.

A government mandated loan is known to be what it is and investors have been able to adapt.

The other major lesson of the crash is that it tells a story about the nature of capital flows in this country. When interest rates went down the hope was that capital would flow in a way as to help the economy get back on it's feet. The fact that capital flowed to the housing market, oil futures, gold, and other investments that are not US production is a rather clear sign that market is in trouble. Stagnating wages and growing income inequality is another sign.

 

[Contumacious]

The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

.

I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.

.

This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:

"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.

"Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.

"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties. Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.

 

[Bombur]

The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.