Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Currently (May 2005) the richest three individuals on the planet have more assets than the combined GDPs of 47 countries.

Do you think that's Democratic or Capitalistic?

Neither one you dunderhead.
This is what everyone has been trying to pound into your thick head.
We are not a Democracy. Never have been.
We are not a capitalism either. Haven't been for generations.
What we are supposed to be is a Republic with a free market economy.
Today, we are neither one.
Our governance is an oligarchy pretending to be a republic, our economic system is no longer a free market system - it is now a corporatist/centralized leech system. One that extracts wealth rather than produces it.

The economic aim of both major parties in the US is to reinforce "capitalism." Neither party is willing to suggest it has outlived its usefulness. Capitalism was created to consolidate more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

Your definition of capitalism as a "free marker" system doesn't really distinguish what the market is supposed to be "free" of. Undue rentier influence as Adam Smith had in mind or is it supposed to be free of democratic (governmental) restrictions?

Capitalism's inherent weaknesses include business cycles and the production of extreme inequalities of income, and both have plagued the institution since its founding hundreds of years ago.

I'm really not clear on what solution you're calling for the replace "an oligarchy pretending to be a Republic." If you imagine this can be accomplished by the further weakening of democratic regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, the oligarchs will no longer have to pretend.

 

[The T]

Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."

Everyone but the Elites...like Members of Congress...Obama, The Clintons...the list is WIDE and long.

Yes, everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others...

Precisely...and the same elites craft law in an attempt to keep those they rule DOWN. The OP should direct his apparent anger toward those he seems to LOVE...he sure as HELL defends his oppressors, doesn't he?

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The quality of your outcome is totally dependent on you.

More and more in the US capitalism guarantees the single most important factor in deciding the trajectory of your life is picking the right parents.

Don't believe it?

Ask Rick:

"But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.

"The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

"Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement 'up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?hp&_r=0

This won't get better under capitalism.
It is a vicious, venal economic system that has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.

Then why don't you get the fuck out of the U.S. and go enjoy European socialism? Exactly....

Because Fascists don't scare me.
What's your excuse?

 

[Dragonlady]

While capitalism is good, unrestrained capitalism is the road to income inequity and deep divisions between rich and poor. Friedman encourage countries to cut the social safety net and set business free from restraint. Every country which had adopted Friedman's economic model has seen wages for the general population fall, and wealth for the top 5% increase.

Capitalism requires a strong social safety net and strong labour protection laws, for the whole economy to thrive. Higher taxes to the most successful are needed to provide the social safety net needed to protect the lower income levels from the cycles of boom and recession which inevitably happen in a capitalistic society.

This notion of blaming the poor for being poor, distracts middle income people from the fleecing they're getting at the hands of the wealthy. The poor aren't bleeding you white, the rich are. As long as you're distracted by the so-called freebies going to the lowest income earners, you completely miss the real robbery by the wealthy.

 

[PredFan]

The fact that this thread is still going shows that liberals cannot learn.

 

[PredFan]

Equality of Opportunity = Capitalism
Equality of outcome = Socialism

No one is entitled to equality of outcome.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Capitalism's periodic crisis always increase poverty, as 2008 has recently reproven.?

Actually crisis are caused by stupidity , such as the one you have demonstrated in this post. Blaming CAPITALISM for the disasters caused by corporatism, fascism, socialism.

.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.

Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:

80% of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

• 92% of poor households have a microwave.
  
  
• Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more cars or trucks.
  
  
• Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
  
  
• Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70% have a VCR.
  
  
• Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
  
  
• More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
  
  
• 43% have Internet access.
  
  
• One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
  
  
• One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA

Well said... the "poor" in the US are the wealthiest poor on earth. The notion of "poor" in the US is a joke. While destitution is possible, one really has to go out of their way to screw it up, to get there. Under those circumstances, without exception, the individual themselves bears the bulk of that RESPONSIBILITY.

And it is in that one concept: RESPONSIBILITY, that the Ideological Left protests the loudest.

Conservativism... OKA: Being a decent, hardworking person of at least a modicum of common sense, IS HARD! And 'it's not fair that being such a person should be that hard.'

The notion that the freedom to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties has on ANY LEVEL resulted in poverty, is ABSURD!

With 'feelings' to the contrary, notwithstanding.

 

[The T]

The fact that this thread is still going shows that liberals cannot learn.

They never do. This Republic is going to HELL in an Obama/Statist/Progressive-led handcart...and the idiot OP is trying to make the case why it is good.

 

[bripat9643]

The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Page 58)

It only goes to page 20

 

[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."

Capitalism requires people to aim high, educate themselves and participate to get somewhere. It would work far better if government hadn't allowed certain wealthy donors to take over running the country. Capitalism needs fair rules that are upheld. It's government, not the private sector, that messed that up. No politician has ever bitten the hand that feeds them and that means always obeying the real 1%, which is not corporations, but the Federal Reserve. We are all slaves to them. We need to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Socialism requires people to merely exist and everyone gets the basics to survive. The basics decrease as the wealth creation decreases over time. Then you have communism.

At least capitalism helps a country grow and if people are lazy, they go no where. And I mean real capitalism, not crony capitalism that we have now, thanks to government. Socialism is unsustainable. I'd rather have the ability to grow and succeed than be trapped in world where limits are placed on every aspect of our lives.

Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.

 

[bripat9643]

The One Chart That Proves Capitalism Works - PolicyMic

Capitalism is getting the poor in South Africa out of poverty.

It's big Government control & interference that causes more inequality.

Your link:

"That being said, this chart really does put things into perspective. While we take for granted the simple things in life, nearly 1 billion people throughout the globe are currently struggling to survive on less than $1.25 a day. While it's great to get involved and donate your time, talents, and resources to local charities, what's really going to help these families is economic liberty."

Capitalism and the governments it controls are consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:

"The figures depicting poverty and hardship are many and varied. Over 20 per cent of the world’s population (that is 1.4 billion people) live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, 75 cents below the official World Bank poverty threshold.

"UNICEF states that 22,000 children (under the age of five; if it was six or seven the numbers would be even higher) die every day due to poverty-related issues.

"Of the two billion children in the world, half are currently living their lives in extreme poverty, with limited or no access to clean water or sanitation, healthcare and education worth the name.

"The greatest concentrations of people living below the 2-dollars-per-day poverty line are to be found in rural areas, where three in every four of those below the poverty line are to be found. Life is little better in the cities, where over half the world’s 7.2 billion population now live, one in three of whom are living in a slum."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

This chart shows that the number of people living on $1.25 or less has been decreasing drastically thanks to capitalism.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The ridiculous premise of the rancid OP is very simplistic and totally wrong.

To reiterate the thesis of Ge0rgiePorgie, "Capitalism = Bad!"

In REALITY, the lot of almost ALL people has been ELEVATED by virtue of the predictable outcomes of a capitalist system.

If jokers wish to quiblee, they will point out that capitalism can be abused and what not. No shit. What "system" is immune to that?

And yes, it is true that the outcome of capitalism will not yield "equality" whatever that vague word might mean when used in such a broad-based context. What system does yield any kind of "equality" if we are speaking about systems under which we'd ever want to have to live?

When WE say that "all men are created equal" and have or should have equal rights, we are NOT saying that all people are equal in all respects. Some are taller, some are faster, some are smarter. And none of that is bad.

Capitalism will not fix any of that even if we deem it 'bad." But then again, no other system will "fix" it either.

The rambling incoherent thesis of the OP simply does not survive any kind of scrutiny. It is sophomoric and just plain silly.

 

[georgephillip]

I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]

Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."

And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:

"2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net

The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams

Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.

 

[whitehall]

Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?

 

[The T]

Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?

And joining... being a party TOOL guarantees BETTER "equality".

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]

Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."

And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:

"2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net

The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams

Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.

HOW exactly do you figure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?

Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.

In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.

The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything. Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.

A rising tide lifts all boats. That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.

Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.

 

[The T]

And the OP is a paid TOOL making the case to KILL this Republic. YES OP...you are. Whom is paying you to be here? WHOM do you work for?

 

[The T]

Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."

And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:

"2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net

The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams

Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.

HOW exactly do you ffigure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?

Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.

In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.

The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything. Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.

A rising tide lifts all boats. That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.

Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.

Georgie is making the case for NOT making a bigger pie as we Americans have always done but can't because of those he defends.

 

[georgephillip]

Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?

Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

"It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy.

"Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power.

"One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime.

"The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky