Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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?

The interest rates on loans in North Dakota are not any better than the average.

My completely free-market, non-state run bank, has offered me excellent rates for years.

As for providing $70 Million to the state is really great and wonderful..... *IF* your goal is to enrich politicians and their political supporters.

I have no interest in enriching politicians, and political supporters.

When you say "$70 Million to the State", what I hear is "$70 Million sucked away from growth and the economy, and blown on scummy politicians and their fat cat supporters".

This is not a plus. It's a negative.

Are Wall Street banks a plus or a negative in your state?

"Each time we pay our state and local taxes -- and all manner of fees -- the state deposits those revenues in a bank.

"If you're in any state but North Dakota, nearly all of these deposits end up in Wall Street's too-big to-fail banks, because those banks are the only entities large enough to handle the load.

"The vast majority of the nation's 7,000 community banks are too small to provide the array of cash management services that state and local governments require.

"We're talking big bucks; at least $1 trillion of our local tax dollars find their way to Wall Street banks, according to Marc Armstrong, executive director of the Public Banking Institute.

"So, not only are we, as taxpayers, on the hook for too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks, but we also end up giving our tax dollars to these same banks each and every time we pay a sales tax or property tax or buy a fishing license.

"In North Dakota, however, all that public revenue runs through its public state bank, which in turn reinvests in the state's small businesses and public infrastructure via partnerships with 80 small community banks."

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

 

[georgephillip]

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis

Interesting, I wonder who wrote the article?

MIKE KONCZAL

A Fellow with the Roosevelt Institute, Konczal works on financial reform, unemployment, inequality, and a progressive vision of the economy.

Roosevelt Institution
Carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.


So we have a fucking socialist who works at an institute which celebrates the socialist proclivities of Franklin Del-anus Roosevelt.

Massive conflict of interests.

.

What's your choice for a government policy that likely caused the Great Recession?

"The government policy that likely made an impact were deregulatory actions.

"In 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the derivatives market, in a lame duck session as a rider to an 11,000 page omnibus appropriation bill.

"A banking capital 'recourse rule' in 2001 allowed the ratings agencies and private bank risk modelers to decide what banks should hold against risk.

"In 2003 the OCC preempted and overruled Georgia’s new anti-predatory lending laws.

"Alan Greenspan refused to enforce regulations on, or even investigate the wrongdoing of, the new subprime market during the 2000s.

"The 2005 bankruptcy reforms in BAPCPA, widely viewed as friendly if not written by the financial industry, codified the market practice of letting derivatives go to the front of the line in bankruptcy, helping create the conditions for shadow banking runs."

See if you can dispute the messenger's content instead of his politics.

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis

 

[Bombur]

CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO.

It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.

There is no such designation as a "CRA loan." Every subprime loan is a CRA loan. Banks had to lower their criteria for all loans because of CRA. You don't actually think they had some specially earmarked loans that were designated for black people with bad credit histories, do you? The use of the term "CRA Loans" indicates only that you're a lying propagandist. It has no connection with the facts.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"CPA Joseph Fried wrote that there is a paucity of CRA loan performance data, based on a response by only 34 of 500 banks surveyed.[105] Nevertheless, estimates have been attempted.

"Edward Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae (1987–89) and Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated that, at June 30, 2008, there were $1.56 trillion of outstanding CRA loans (or the equivalent). Of this amount, about $940 billion (about 6.7 million loans) was, according to Pinto, subprime.[106]

"Economist Paul Krugman notes the subprime boom 'was overwhelmingly driven' by loan originators who were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.[107]

"One study, by a legal firm which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, found that CRA-covered institutions were less likely to make subprime loans (only 20-25% of all subprime loans), and when they did the interest rates were lower.

"The banks were half as likely to resell the loans to other parties."

When I was talking about CRA loans I was talking about those loans that the act required banks to make. The idea that all the sub prime loans were forced upon financial institutions is spectacularly stupid. The context of my comments was with regards to the supposition that the banks were being forced by government with regards to these sub-prime loans.

I have no problem with clarifying intent but if anyone was actually trying to argue that all sub-prime loans are the fault of the CRA I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[georgephillip]

OP GeorgiePorgie's REAL problem with Capitalism and "income inequality" is that capitalism yields a MARKEDLY higher base level for the poor (notwithstanding that they don't have income "equality" with the rich) than socialism can produce.

Capitalism delivers the "bads" to the vast majority of US workers.

"In the US, Roosevelt got capitalists to accept the new social welfare institutions by carefully NOT taxing their wealth (either corporate or personal) and limiting tax increases on their incomes.

"Roosevelt got workers to accept the bailouts of capitalists by NOT taxing workers to pay for those bailouts.

"Of course, financing very costly government interventions without taxing corporations, the rich, or the workers enough to pay for them meant that the government had to borrow what it did not raise in taxes.

"The federal budget had to run big deficits that rapidly increased the national debt."

In Economic Crisis, Capitalism Delivers the Bads

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
Some people are bright but some are stupid.
Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.

The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.

Live with it.

Which explains perfectly the toilets that Dubya manicured on his way to the Oval Office.
Maybe the American Dream has migrated to Indonesia?

 

[gnarlylove]

What a bunch of mindless drivel. The irony is that you misrepresent and demonize capitalism while polishing up socialism, WHILE you pretend to be above the fray.

My mindless drivel was elucidating Americans use of the mass media as their main and only source for news. Moreover I argued it narrows parameters of what is acceptable and what is not: it necessitates the triumph of capitalism at every turn and masks overt flaws. Of course you don't think there are flaws or they are dismissable. I get it, you don't live in the part of the social strata that makes you regret having needs and being human. In which case I'll assume your parameters match those of American media. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am above reproach or socialism is but with attitudes precisely like yours, we will always trample good human beings under foot because we don't give two shits about them. This is not the society for liberty and justice for all. You and your ilk are the vast majority of people who have a stake in the success of capitalism. Very few people step outside this mainstream to see if its working for people other than themselves--that's what mainstream is--egos the size of states. Captialism is fueled by selfish pursuits. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's an observational fact.

You honestly don't live in the real world. You have never driven around America and seen the homes, cars, boats and lifestyles.

I guess on every single post I need put a disclaimer that capitalism has benefited billions and billions of brats like yourself who assume they know everything about a person from one single post. Get your head out of your ass.

I read elsewhere you noted the existence of hate and how you distanced yourself from it. HA! Read your own post! I see you forget to scrutinize your own language because it's obvious you think poor humans are to be treated like dogs with no rights to food, housing and love. I hope you don't complain there's a "entitlement problem." Why? If you treat people like dogs, how can you expect their efforts and achievements to match those of the upper middle class or even middle class people? Treating people like shit will result in shit: not allowing humans to sleep indoors or forcing them to cram into homeless shelters where drugs and disease are rampant--which you wouldn't know because you've never had to stay in those places. Or taking handouts from food pantries which have skyrocketed all over America because more people are in need. Never had to stand in those long lines huh? Never had to eat old meat from a can that you are thankful to have?

Your attitudes are selfishness and a total lack of heart. It OK because everyone you know is this way, except towards one another. Among your own ilk you are friendly, but poor people and opposition brings out the worst in you, or best, I'm not sure. I don't care if you give to charity, if you treat them like shit you are not being charitable. Charity involves a spirit of compassion and empathy.

Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company.

The right and the ability are two separate things. Although it's not entirely the case, most capitalists owners are not about the hand over control to their drivel workforce. It would be a major shift in the balance of power wouldn't it? Money isn't the only issue at play here. See the work of Gar Alperovitz regarding worker owned industry in northern Ohio. It details what you seem to lack in understanding regarding this topic.

You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution.

If it's a matter of the Constitution, it says ALL AMERICANS are given the inalienable right to pursue their life liberty and happiness. Do you think this excludes the need for housing and food? Do you think people can pursue liberty without food? Without support? Give me a break.

Do you live in a gated community? I know the answer: Yes. And if not, what the hell is wrong with you? Can't you work harder and be born with a father that had more inheritance to give? Tsk tsk...you should have done better in the happenstance department. Oh wait, no one gets to decide where their born? Hmmm....

To you ALL AMERICANS' inalienable right include you and your immediate family and fuck the rest of the world. It excludes people disproportionately of color because my homeless compatriots tend to be racial minorities and to you they must be low-life *******. Way to be on the cutting edge! I'm sure they roundly agree with you, too bad they can't express that on this highly honorable and credible message board.

To think inalienable rights for all Americans mean only those who earn above poverty wages...what a new spin on the Constitution.

Again, I know capitalism has done great things. It has also turned our democracy into a plutocracy. All American individuals are covered in the Constitution except those who were born into the wrong class. And give me a break on success stories. These are not the norm and will never be.
Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet

 

[RKMBrown]

First, back to interest rates. The housing price bubble started in 1997. The interest rate in 1997 was 7.6%. Is that really too low? Because the interest rate in 1993, was 7.3%, and the bubble didn't start for another 4 years.
Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages - Freddie Mac

Again, if you have real evidence to support your claims, by all means post it. I'll be more than interested to see your evidence, because I'm not seeing that in the data. I used to believe your view on this, but I can't justify that position anymore.

Now to the "financial institutions make a lot of money" argument.

I'm not denying any of that. Yes, once a bubble starts, people start jumping on the speculation. People were buying homes, and selling them a month later for $100K more. Banks were making crazy loans, knowing that if the guy defaulted, they would get a house back that was worth more than the original loan.

I agree with ALL OF THIS. 100% correct! No question about it!

Here's the problem.... what started it? Yes, once the bubble got going, all that stuff you mentioned is going to happen.

WHAT WAS THE CAUSE?

That's where my issue comes in. Because if you say the cause was "greed", then you have to believe in black magic. Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years.

If "greed" was the cause, why didn't the sub-prime bubble start in the 1980s? Why not 1990? Why not 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96? Why not any of those years? Why didn't it wait until 1999? Or 2000? Or 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06?

Again, you can't tell me it was interest rates, because interest rates were lower in 1993, than in 1997. Why didn't it start in 1993? Besides, is one quarter of a point, that different? 7.8% is good, but 7.6% is bad? Not a logical argument.

So we're still left with the question.... why 1997? Did aliens come and zap all the bankers with greed guns?

Still not a logical argument. Something fundamental in the mortgage industry had to change, and until you can provide something.... anything... to support your position, my bet still remains on that deal with Freddie Mac, guaranteeing sub-prime loans, with an implied AAA rating.

If you have something else to suggest, by all means. Post your evidence. I'll consider it.

Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking.

I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is.

You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that.

If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?

First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997. Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.

Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.

If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that? You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious". I go by the facts. When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.

If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it. I'll consider your perspective.

Now as to the 'bad information'.....

Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information? Was there bad information in 1996 and before? Nope. 1997? Yes. What changed? Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.

The market followed.

Should the market have followed? We of course know they should not have. But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.

Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans.... Why would you think they wouldn't?

To be fair that bubble also coincided with the dot com boom... so there were actually two bubbles pushing the price of homes up, dot com millionaires and taxpayer secured sub-prime loans.

 

[Indeependent]

Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking.

I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is.

You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that.

If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?

First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997. Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.

Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.

If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that? You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious". I go by the facts. When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.

If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it. I'll consider your perspective.

Now as to the 'bad information'.....

Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information? Was there bad information in 1996 and before? Nope. 1997? Yes. What changed? Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.

The market followed.

Should the market have followed? We of course know they should not have. But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.

Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans.... Why would you think they wouldn't?

To be fair that bubble also coincided with the dot com boom... so there were actually two bubbles pushing the price of homes up, dot com millionaires and taxpayer secured sub-prime loans.

Not at all.
The US economy cooled off drastically around late 2000 and GW's first term was defined by an economy in the dumps.
The Housing Bubble was a distinct occurrence after GW realized his presidency wasn't going to be remarkable for the US.
That's coming from a NYC/LI perspective.

 

[RKMBrown]

First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997. Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.

Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.

If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that? You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious". I go by the facts. When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.

If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it. I'll consider your perspective.

Now as to the 'bad information'.....

Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information? Was there bad information in 1996 and before? Nope. 1997? Yes. What changed? Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.

The market followed.

Should the market have followed? We of course know they should not have. But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.

Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans.... Why would you think they wouldn't?

To be fair that bubble also coincided with the dot com boom... so there were actually two bubbles pushing the price of homes up, dot com millionaires and taxpayer secured sub-prime loans.

Not at all.
The US economy cooled off drastically around late 2000 and GW's first term was defined by an economy in the dumps.
The Housing Bubble was a distinct occurrence after GW realized his presidency wasn't going to be remarkable for the US.
That's coming from a NYC/LI perspective.

Get your glasses checked we are talking about the bubble starting in 1997 not late 2000

 

[Indeependent]

You know, you're right.
My mistake.

 

[RKMBrown]

You know, you're right.
My mistake.

Times were really good back in 1997-99... now in hindsight of course it was just a bubble, but boy did we think we were smart back then The conversion from production economy to tech economy was complete. Then we sold it leaving everyone to wonder what's next... Bush's answer? Wars in the ME and a police state. Obama's answer? more wars more police state and lots of freebies funded by borrowing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.

You've got to be kidding.

Riskier lending. Why?
How is that possible?
Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.

Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

 

[Mr. H.]

Capitalism guarantees nothing.

And that's the beauty of it.

Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

[Indeependent]

Riskier lending. Why?
How is that possible?
Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.

Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.

The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.

They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.

 

[P@triot]

We all should have the right to quality food and shelter.

Where in the hell is that written?!?

Also, I would assume then that you agree you should labor for 10 to 12 hours per day to provide me with that "quality food and shelter" I'm entitled to while I relax on my hammock reading the musings of Karl Marx? No lying either. I want the honest answer here.

 

[P@triot]

We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks

Is English your second language?

An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.

You've got to be kidding.

Yo retard

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.

Answer: NEVER

 

[Indeependent]

An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.

You've got to be kidding.

Yo retard

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.

Answer: NEVER

You are a fall guy for a Republican president who spent money like a Liberal.

 

[P@triot]

Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Man, this is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin here. Deep breath and.....go!

First of all, since when is it the responsibility of the White House to monitor mortgages? I've seen some stupid fuck'n posts on USMB before, but this is one for the ages.

Second, in you're infinite left-wing stupidity, did you ever realize the mind-numbing contradictions of your failed ideology? If a person goes to the bank making $50k a year and is turned for a $600k mortgage, you people have a fuck'n aneurysm that "the average man can't get a loan and is locked out of the inner circle". And God forbid if that person is black!!! Christ Almighty will the thunder roar and the earth shake if a black person is turned down for the loan! And you'll find a Republican president to blame for that.

But......if that irresponsible person is granted that loan and the irresponsible person fails to pay it back, well then the banks were "predatory" and "taking advantage" of that person. And then you'll find a a Republican president to blame for that. Do see you how insanely fuck'n stupid you sound now? Whether they get the loan or they don't get the loan, either way you cry like a little itty-bitty fucking bitch and then randomly find the name of a Republican president to blame it on.

But wait - there's more! Third, and most importantly out of all of this, you're too fuck'n stupid to even realize that you and your fellow Dumbocrats are to blame for all of the "off-shoring". You demonize the wealthy. You punish success. You raise taxes on business. You implement crushing regulations. You make it very clear that you hate the business owner, their business, and the jobs that result from both. And then you stand there scratching your head trying to figure out why businesses are fleeing the U.S.? Really? This is literally as fuck'n stupid as a Nazi scratching their head trying to figure out why all of the Jews are fleeing from Auschwitz.

Look, I realize you are a serious dick. But for 10 seconds can you stop being such a dick and answer one serious question honestly? If it cost $60 million per year to move operations overseas and you could actually save $40 million per year to keep your business in the U.S., do you think anyone would ever move their business overseas? No, really - would they?

With as much vile and contempt that you assholes could muster, you have told corporate America to go fuck themselves. And so they said "ok - I'll take my ball over to that playground over there where I'm actually wanted and where I'm treated nicely". Until you realize that whoever makes doing business the best deal for business will get all of the businesses - and the subsequent jobs that go with it - you continue the "off-shoring" that you libtard's created. But sadly, Dumbocrats are just too damn dumb and brainwashed by their failed ideology to ever figure it out.

 

[P@triot]

Yo retard

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.

Answer: NEVER

You are a fall guy for a Republican president who spent money like a Liberal.

Really? I give GWB a very low grade as president and I have always correctly identified him as the big government, spend recklessly liberal that he is.

Would you like to try again junior?

 

[dblack]

What a bunch of mindless drivel. The irony is that you misrepresent and demonize capitalism while polishing up socialism, WHILE you pretend to be above the fray.

My mindless drivel was elucidating Americans use of the mass media as their main and only source for news. Moreover I argued it narrows parameters of what is acceptable and what is not: it necessitates the triumph of capitalism at every turn and masks overt flaws. Of course you don't think there are flaws or they are dismissable. I get it, you don't live in the part of the social strata that makes you regret having needs and being human. In which case I'll assume your parameters match those of American media. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am above reproach or socialism is but with attitudes precisely like yours, we will always trample good human beings under foot because we don't give two shits about them. This is not the society for liberty and justice for all. You and your ilk are the vast majority of people who have a stake in the success of capitalism. Very few people step outside this mainstream to see if its working for people other than themselves--that's what mainstream is--egos the size of states. Captialism is fueled by selfish pursuits. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's an observational fact.

You honestly don't live in the real world. You have never driven around America and seen the homes, cars, boats and lifestyles.

I guess on every single post I need put a disclaimer that capitalism has benefited billions and billions of brats like yourself who assume they know everything about a person from one single post. Get your head out of your ass.

I read elsewhere you noted the existence of hate and how you distanced yourself from it. HA! Read your own post! I see you forget to scrutinize your own language because it's obvious you think poor humans are to be treated like dogs with no rights to food, housing and love. I hope you don't complain there's a "entitlement problem." Why? If you treat people like dogs, how can you expect their efforts and achievements to match those of the upper middle class or even middle class people? Treating people like shit will result in shit: not allowing humans to sleep indoors or forcing them to cram into homeless shelters where drugs and disease are rampant--which you wouldn't know because you've never had to stay in those places. Or taking handouts from food pantries which have skyrocketed all over America because more people are in need. Never had to stand in those long lines huh? Never had to eat old meat from a can that you are thankful to have?

Your attitudes are selfishness and a total lack of heart. It OK because everyone you know is this way, except towards one another. Among your own ilk you are friendly, but poor people and opposition brings out the worst in you, or best, I'm not sure. I don't care if you give to charity, if you treat them like shit you are not being charitable. Charity involves a spirit of compassion and empathy.

Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company.

The right and the ability are two separate things. Although it's not entirely the case, most capitalists owners are not about the hand over control to their drivel workforce. It would be a major shift in the balance of power wouldn't it? Money isn't the only issue at play here. See the work of Gar Alperovitz regarding worker owned industry in northern Ohio. It details what you seem to lack in understanding regarding this topic.

You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution.

If it's a matter of the Constitution, it says ALL AMERICANS are given the inalienable right to pursue their life liberty and happiness. Do you think this excludes the need for housing and food? Do you think people can pursue liberty without food? Without support? Give me a break.

Do you live in a gated community? I know the answer: Yes. And if not, what the hell is wrong with you? Can't you work harder and be born with a father that had more inheritance to give? Tsk tsk...you should have done better in the happenstance department. Oh wait, no one gets to decide where their born? Hmmm....

To you ALL AMERICANS' inalienable right include you and your immediate family and fuck the rest of the world. It excludes people disproportionately of color because my homeless compatriots tend to be racial minorities and to you they must be low-life *******. Way to be on the cutting edge! I'm sure they roundly agree with you, too bad they can't express that on this highly honorable and credible message board.

To think inalienable rights for all Americans mean only those who earn above poverty wages...what a new spin on the Constitution.

Again, I know capitalism has done great things. It has also turned our democracy into a plutocracy. All American individuals are covered in the Constitution except those who were born into the wrong class. And give me a break on success stories. These are not the norm and will never be.
Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet

This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.