Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:

"…Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years…"

"…it would take half a generation – till now, basically – to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.

"A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'

"Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."

"…Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.

"They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

 

[georgephillip]

Good for him! That is outstanding. Sadly, it's 4.1% more than than any of us should be paying.

Stop Whining

"Roosevelt’s debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor.

"The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.
FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes.

"How stiff?

"FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate.

"At a time of 'grave national danger,' Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.'

"That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.

"FDR 'settled' for a marginal tax rate of 94%.

"Makes today's super-wealthy seem pretty whiny and greedy, doesn't it?"

Doesn't it.

FDR's Proposed Marginal Tax Rate Was 100%

Yeah, FDR's failings in economics are well known.
No American president ought to violate the Constitution like he did.

Define "failings":

"The Works Progress Administration (renamed in 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unemployed people (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads.

"In much smaller but more famous projects the WPA employed musicians, artists, writers, actors and directors in large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.[1]

"Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency.

"The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billionAt its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration.

"Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States.

"Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs.[3]

"Full employment, which emerged as a national goal around 1944, was not the WPA goal. It tried to provide one paid job for all families in which the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment."

Roosevelt's principal economic failing was saving capitalism from itself.

Works Progress Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?

I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you asking me to write a Bill for the Congress or do you just not wish to participate in fruitful discussion?

I'm merely trying to gain some clarity on the views you're expressing. "Policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit" is fairly vague. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd disagree. But what of our current laws and policies conflict with that? I have my own set of complaints about the status quo, but I'm pretty sure they're quite different than yours, even though we're recognizing many of the same problems.

I'm not asking your for a comprehensive legislative proposal - just some concrete examples of what you'd like to see changed, or at least a general idea of how you think government should involve itself in our economic activities.

The OP would rather not put forth a straightforward list of ideas.
It is more important to express style rather than substance.

 

[georgephillip]

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?

I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.

FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.

"...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.

"Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets – buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.

"Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.

"It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays…"

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?

 

[Andylusion]

The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:

"…Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years…"

"…it would take half a generation – till now, basically – to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.

"A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'

"Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."

"…Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.

"They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.

So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.

Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.

Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.

So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?


First, banks have owned commodities for ages. Since the beginning of the country really. It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed. That's what the commodity market is all about. It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities. This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction. The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British. Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had. Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.

Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?

But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world. We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world. The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.

Yet, where did the crash originate? In the US. Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes. Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.

So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?

I would lean toward, yes why not? Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before. In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning. Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.

So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?

Further, banks always buy shares in companies. This is a normal common part of investment. So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?

What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company? Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.

As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!" chocked full of drama queen proclamations. Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?

 

[P@triot]

Oingo Boingo - 'Capitalism' - Occupy Wall Street Edition - YouTube

Immature....Ignorant....Indolent.... The perfect trifecta to breed Dumbocrats. You see those people who look like they haven't bathed in weeks, have the grooming habits of barnyard animals, wallow in disease, drugs, and promiscuity and you wonder who in the hell would ever align themselves with them?!?

At least 90% of them have no idea why they are even there. They are just modern day hippies looking for a cause to rally around (because being at a protest means not having to hold a job). The other 10% that does know why they are there are too ignorant of basic economics to understand that they shouldn't be there. It's literally the blind leading the blind...

 

[georgephillip]

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.

That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.

Fuck you, stupid Commie.

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

 

[gnarlylove]

My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all. That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.

Then we have different ideas of what corruption is. I don't think any system or ideology that carries out the systematic oppression and murder of anyone let alone millions has any right to be considered pure or retain dignity. Of course as Stalin reigned over the masses, it doesn't take much to realize his policies are diametrically opposed to real socialism and real communism.

These systems are defined by their edification of humanity and the removing of alienating labor--making the human whole unlike our fragmented lifestyles that lead to less productivity and depression/anti-social behavior. Socialism aims to pave the road for communism by changing our attitudes from ego to altruistic. Socialism is thus an attempt to run a society without EXTREME inequality and vitriol. Socialism as such recognizes there will be inequality but aims to reduce it to healthy levels. Communism is quite utopian vision of of a highly advanced socialist society--and I'm not really talking about Denmark because those countries practice a heavy blend of capitalism. Of course communism is disputable and most utopian visions are illusory but to think Stalin practiced either is just sucking from the propaganda teat.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor...has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

The red quote, put differently, says when such human synergy takes place and abundance is flowing for all (or a high percentage) only then can we call a society truly communist. Communism being summed up in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying communism or even socialism is viable at the present time. However, we are in desperate need of a shift in power away from elite control and to a more democratic approach to power, wealth, and even the police (since they target those already in poverty when whites are more likely to use drugs).

I encourage sensible steps towards a society that treats profit secondary to human life.

 

[P@triot]

Regardless, those born into cushy lives as a result of affluent parents account for the majority of success in this country--it breeds success because the opportunities to acheive and become are so readily apparent. In low income communities, not that they are any less of a human, but they indeed are offered sub-par education and virtually no good opportunities.

Pure, unadulterated, I-want-life-handed-to-me-on-silver-platter, sniveling, bullshit.

The Menendez brothers were born into affluence - today they sit in prison.

Chris Gardner was born into poverty, today he sits on tens of millions of dollars.

78% of NFL players file bankruptcy within 5 years of retiring. These are people who have made ungodly sums of money.

The people who handle their business and persevere always succeed. The people who do not, always fail (liberals just ensure more of that failure by artificially propping it up).

You show me someone who relentlessly pursues excellence for a decade and I guarantee you I will show you someone who is not in poverty. 100% of the time.

But hey - keep with the pity-party mentality of the Dumbocrats. It worked soooooo well in Detroit!

 

[P@triot]

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.

Fuck you, stupid Commie.

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

 

[P@triot]

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?

I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.

And that's exactly what Obama will do actually. He'll call you "paranoid" and a "conspiracy theorist" all while doing exactly what you knew he was doing.

It's already been proven that he knew Americans would not be able to keep their health insurance plan or their doctors. Yet he looked directly into the camera time and time again and adamantly insisted the exact opposite.

It was one of the most egregious and disgusting lies ever told to the American people. And Barack Hussein was proud to do it.

 

[georgephillip]

The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:

"…Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years…"

"…it would take half a generation – till now, basically – to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.

"A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'

"Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."

"…Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.

"They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.

Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.

So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.

Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.

Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.

So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?


First, banks have owned commodities for ages. Since the beginning of the country really. It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed. That's what the commodity market is all about. It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities. This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction. The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British. Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had. Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.

Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?

But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world. We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world. The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.

Yet, where did the crash originate? In the US. Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes. Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.

So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?

I would lean toward, yes why not? Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before. In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning. Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.

So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?

Further, banks always buy shares in companies. This is a normal common part of investment. So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?

What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company? Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.

As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!" chocked full of drama queen proclamations. Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?

Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
Here it is:

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Among the reasons why "the disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater that it has even been" include Wall Street's manipulation of the CRA to produce a sub-prime meltdown and global recession in 2008.

Since no one on Wall Street went to prison for the poison they injected into the global economy five years ago, bankers today are manipulating key commodities markets which is further increasing global economic inequality WHICH IS WHAT MY THREAD IS ABOUT:

"And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

"You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.

"How was all of this possible? And who signed off on it?

"By exploiting loopholes in a dense, decade-and-a-half-old piece of financial legislation, Wall Street has effected a revolutionary change that American citizens never discussed, debated or prepared for, and certainly never explicitly permitted in any meaningful way: the wholesale merger of high finance with heavy industry.

"This blitzkrieg reorganization of our economy has left millions of Americans facing a smorgasbord of frightfully unexpected new problems.

"Do we even have a regulatory structure in place to look out for these new forms of manipulation? (Answer: We don't.)

"And given that the banking sector that came so close to ruining the world economy five years ago has now vastly expanded its footprint, who's in charge of preventing the next crash?

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[P@triot]

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.

Fuck you, stupid Commie.

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

Here is a much better plan.....

1% tax on anyone making over a million dollars

5% tax on anyone making over $500,000

10% tax on anyone making over $40,000

50% tax on anyone making over $20,000

Anyone on welfare, unemployment, etc. is sent to work every day doing hard labor for 12 hours repairing roads, cleaning parks and highways (saving us a TON of tax dollars on roads, parks, etc.)

Here is basically what liberals and your very absurd "plan" above do:

Your child comes home from school with a report card that has straight A's and a glowing report about their behavior, effort, etc. from the teacher. Your other child comes home with straight F's. They tell you they quit school two months ago and are strung out on heroin. You violently and mercilessly beat the child with straight A's and you reward the child who dropped out with a new iPhone and a new Ford Mustang.

You would never do that. Nobody (even idiot Dumbocrats) would do that. And yet, that's exactly how Dumbocrats think we should run the country and how we should design our tax laws and regulate our economy.

Yes folks, Dumbocrats really are this stupid....

 

[georgephillip]

Fuck you, stupid Commie.

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

 

[dblack]

My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all. That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.

Then we have different ideas of what corruption is. I don't think any system or ideology that carries out the systematic oppression and murder of anyone let alone millions has any right to be considered pure or retain dignity. Of course as Stalin reigned over the masses, it doesn't take much to realize his policies are diametrically opposed to real socialism and real communism.

These systems are defined by their edification of humanity and the removing of alienating labor--making the human whole unlike our fragmented lifestyles that lead to less productivity and depression/anti-social behavior. Socialism aims to pave the road for communism by changing our attitudes from ego to altruistic. Socialism is thus an attempt to run a society without EXTREME inequality and vitriol. Socialism as such recognizes there will be inequality but aims to reduce it to healthy levels. Communism is quite utopian vision of of a highly advanced socialist society--and I'm not really talking about Denmark because those countries practice a heavy blend of capitalism. Of course communism is disputable and most utopian visions are illusory but to think Stalin practiced either is just sucking from the propaganda teat.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor...has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

The red quote, put differently, says when such human synergy takes place and abundance is flowing for all (or a high percentage) only then can we call a society truly communist. Communism being summed up in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying communism or even socialism is viable at the present time. However, we are in desperate need of a shift in power away from elite control and to a more democratic approach to power, wealth, and even the police (since they target those already in poverty when whites are more likely to use drugs).

I encourage sensible steps towards a society that treats profit secondary to human life.

The "red quote" is a truism that glosses over the crucial question of how we decide what the relevant abilities and needs are. Capitalism leaves us free to work this out through voluntary interactions. Socialism replaces individual judgment with state mandate.

 

[P@triot]

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.

In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?

Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is you - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.

It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is actual "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.

As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are clearly more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is clearly more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).

The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.

 

[georgephillip]

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.

Fuck you, stupid Commie.

94%?? Is he crazy, lol.

94%!!?

It wouldn't be the first time.

"The Roosevelt administration had been gearing up to support the war effort long before the actual attack.

"When bombers struck on December 7, 1941, taxes were already high by historical standards.

"There were a dizzying 32 different tax brackets, starting at 10% and topping out at 79% on incomes over $1 million, 80% on incomes over $2 million, and 81% on income over $5 million.

"In April 1942, just a few short months after the attack, President Roosevelt proposed a 100% top rate.

"At a time of 'grave national danger,' he argued, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year." (That's roughly '$300,000 in today's dollars).

"Roosevelt never got his 100% rate.

"However, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised top rates to 88% on incomes over $200,000.

"By 1944, the bottom rate had more than doubled to 23%, and the top rate reached an all-time high of 94%."

How would you feel about a 94% tax rate? - CBS News

 

[gnarlylove]

"Policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit" is fairly vague. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd disagree.

I think you are sheltering yourself from what goes on if you think we value life over profit. In your personal life I know you value life over money but the system doesn't.

Our system is designed to reward those with money and punish those without it by making their lives miserable. But since we inherit our parents circumstances, our freedom is moot.

Those born in need are encouraged through billions in advertising to borrow in an attempt to improve their life. They may have an immediate improvement in their welfare but what happens in the long run?

Compounded interest maintains their status as long-term customers. For every dollar spent on paying the principal, there are 3 dollars spent on fees and interest, according to Elizabeth Warren and the banks confirmed this (see "Maxed Out"). However, in the past debt forgiveness was a regular affair in governments (see the Bible or The Shadow Side of Debt). But today debt is essential to the system. Anyone in debt must either pay the principal and the interest (sometimes as high as 40%) in full or die (or file bankruptcy). So anyone in this predicament is much more likely, nay, obligated to take any low paying job in order to stop debt collection harassment and feel like they are making progress towards financial success.

This is known as wage slavery. In addition to debt, wage slavery is also essential mechanism of the system. It provides cheap and dispensable labor force , whether here or abroad.

Thus, we value debt and profit above human life by taking from the poor and redistributing their money to the Wall St. via compounded interest and the stock market. Those who trade money and buy/sell debt are those with the most lavish lifestyles. So clearly we value their "work" above those providing essential services to maintain society such as garbage men who wake at 3AM to pick up heavy, smelly barrels.

Those who manage their debt well are few and far between because the onus is often too great. Not to mention advertising is so ubiquitous that it induces cyclical consumption--yet another essential feature to our system. Without perpetual increasing demand the system falters and may collapse. The fact that more money is spent on ads than the making of products should clue you into how important advertising is to maintain our drone like consumption.

These three mechanisms, debt, wage slavery and cyclical consumption are essential and are also designed to keep the poor down and aide the rich. But the rich really don't need more of anything because they aren't the one's asking for soup or hope. Instead, they have no conception of how their actions impact ecology and humanity. All they know is they are making bank and it feels wonderful. And their game called economics supports their externalizing of ecology and humanity.

This article, Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ.com, demonstrates how harmful and corrosive to society the stock market really is. A brain damaged trader is better off than an trader with a normal brain. That's because those without empathy tend to trade better since they have no ties about if there actions are harming a family or a community.

So yeah, we are definitely valuing profit over humanity in a very real yet covert way. It's deliciously baked into the system yet every day people die in the tens of thousands as a result of preventable problems like malnutrition (obesity and starvation) and billions more suffer daily with no end in sight.

 

[gnarlylove]

The "red quote" is a truism that glosses over the crucial question of how we decide what the relevant abilities and needs are. Capitalism leaves us free to work this out through voluntary interactions. Socialism replaces individual judgment with state mandate.

I tried to make it clear this is not necessarily the best system of governance. Of course if our goal is to generate wealth to no end, capitalism is your best bet.

Also, socialism is not necessarily state sponsored. It treats humans much more realistically than thinking each human is a profit maximizing entity. That is a joke if you think each human acts that way yet capitalism depends on this foul assumption. Profit should not be the end goal, it should be to create a balance between humanity and nature.

That's why addressing particular policy issues ignores these huge gaffes in general principles. We are not profit maximizing entities, we are human beings that need to share love and share space. Ignoring these needs as fundamental is ignoring humanity and calling us robots.