Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Andylusion]

Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?

No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.

F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.

The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.

Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.

Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem. Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.

Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that. They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating. That's exactly what they did. They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.

The rating Agencies followed suit. Should they have? Maybe not. But they did. Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.

Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.

LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.

No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.

Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic. Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.

 

[Bombur]

No it wouldn't. What are you talking about?

The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.

No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.

I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.

If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn. One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest. The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.

At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn. The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.

Wealth is either created, or it is consumed. The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.

This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.

Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004. Today she's broke. All the wealth is gone. She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.

$10 Million dollars gone.

She consumed her wealth.

Alternatively take Steve Jobs. Jobs got $5 Million dollars. What did he do with it? He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.

Are you grasping this? All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.

As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.

Where does that come from?

It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.

When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route. He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine. He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.

What do most people do in high school? I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.

Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.

There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth. There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.

Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this. Some people will consume all they have. Others will invest all they have. The people invest, will have concentrated wealth. The people who consume, will have little to nothing.

I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.

Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.

You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.

If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.

You literally don't know what you are talking about. That post was so simple, Forest Gump could have figured out my meaning, but you apparently can not.

Oh well. Some people are leftists, and ignorance is required to maintain that belief system. Good luck to you.

Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.

Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.

 

[Bombur]

Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem. Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.

Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that. They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating. That's exactly what they did. They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.

The rating Agencies followed suit. Should they have? Maybe not. But they did. Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.

Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.

LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.

No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.

Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic. Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.

Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.

The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.

Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.

 

[Andylusion]

Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.

Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.

Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about. You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.

Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer. It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[bripat9643]

Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital. Inequality on matters if it's the result of government favoritism. That explains the current wave of it, if it exists. Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.

Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market.

Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.

Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong. He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market. According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital. The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more. Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again. In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.

Your position is 100% horse manure. It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.

No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.

Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic. Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.

Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.

The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.

Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.

See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post. You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written. The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk. You should find another topic to discuss. Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.

 

[gnarlylove]

"people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.

Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?

I'd like to come back to this...

By the people coming together in classic town hall meeting, our problems could be resolved by ourselves. It's called compromise. Compromise isn't always possible but the IDEAL is that we can reach agreements on how to solve basic problems. Then the "government" or our representative simply enacts legislation based on our ability to agree on what solves a problem. I agree that majority rule based on 51% can cause serious problems--it's a recognition of the fallacy of popular opinion. You are making a fundamental point about logic.

Would this work in America today? FUCK NO. Our system depends on division and strife. People stick to their principles whether they have any relevance to solving a problem or not. I think once we overcome this and realize we are all humans with basic needs, that we must work together then we can genuinely solve our problems. The use of Democracy can lead to the resolution of many problems when humans seek solutions, not our ideologies.

In effect I'm saying the majority rule should only be reached when everyone agrees (of course there will be outliers and mental illness) but by being forced to unanimously agree we would hope that this requires serious thought instead of the current system of paying money to get "solutions" across. The problem is we don't live in a society that likes to work together in recognition of solidarity to solve our problems. We stick to ideals and slogans that prevent non-partisan ideas from flourishing. So no democracy can flourish when one side is always right, the other is always wrong, and the majority of Americans don't agree with either side!

 

[georgephillip]

Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?

How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?

Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism. HollyWood does. You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first. Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow. Otherwise.... just shut up. Go preach at a Scientology church or something.

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

 

[Andylusion]

How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?

Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism. HollyWood does. You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first. Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow. Otherwise.... just shut up. Go preach at a Scientology church or something.

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

So what? I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.

Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.

Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality. You hypocrites go first.

Start with this.... how much do you make? If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You go first. Go for equality. Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year. That's what the world average income is. You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is. Show us what true income equality is.

But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites. You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.

 

[georgephillip]

Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.

It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.

Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia? Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit. Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.

But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit. Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.

Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.

What part of this, do you people not get? If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor. You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs. Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.

BRILLIANT! Who cares about those people. Screw them. We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!

How's the oil production in Fallujah?

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

"Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.

"They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent

You lost yet again! LOL. That didn't address anything I said. It makes no valid points at all. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint: Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument. Because if you had a point, you would make it. The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument. Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How's the oil production in Fallujah?

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

"Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.

"They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent

You lost yet again! LOL. That didn't address anything I said. It makes no valid points at all. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint: Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument. Because if you had a point, you would make it. The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument. Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.

 

[georgephillip]

Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism. HollyWood does. You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first. Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow. Otherwise.... just shut up. Go preach at a Scientology church or something.

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

So what? I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.

Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.

Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality. You hypocrites go first.

Start with this.... how much do you make? If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You go first. Go for equality. Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year. That's what the world average income is. You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is. Show us what true income equality is.

But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites. You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.

Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.
You want to make this personal?
I've never made twenty thousand dollars in a single year of my 45 years in the private work force.
I currently earn $897.40 a month or $10,768.80 per year.
Your turn, Stud.
Your credibility is on the line.

 

[Bombur]

Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic. Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.

Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.

The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.

Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.

See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post. You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written. The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk. You should find another topic to discuss. Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.

Ohh I am sorry did I not use the word "imply" enough when describing your "understanding" of the crisis.

You don't know how MBS are created, rated, or priced. You think F&F can make decisions that they don't. You think the problem with a historic price bubble was not these high prices but default rates.

The only thing you have shown me is that you don't understand what you read. Even the article you posted doesn't actually say what you thought it said.

 

[Bombur]

Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.

Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.

Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about. You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.

Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer. It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to. Thanks for stopping by.

Then logically explain why you are talking about income inequality between individuals in a thread about rising income inequality at the national level.

 

[georgephillip]

You lost yet again! LOL. That didn't address anything I said. It makes no valid points at all. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint: Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument. Because if you had a point, you would make it. The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument. Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.

TK, where the hell you been?
This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.

From my OP

"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

I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO

I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.

Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.

 

[P@triot]

Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.

"What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.

"For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.

"Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.

"The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.

"Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.

"Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."

Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff

Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.

It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.

Shrink government now!

The Tea Party is glad you agree.

The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.

Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.

It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something this basic....

 

[P@triot]

It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.

Shrink government now!

The Tea Party is glad you agree.

The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.

Stupid liberals love to make it harder to hire people and then whine that not enough are hired.
Now they want to reward criminal invaders with citizenship.
Because that will help low-skill Americans earn more.

Of course Dumbocrats want to reward criminals - because there is nothing Dumbocrats love more than power. Why do you think - despite vehemently opposing ending slavery and the Civil Rights movement (and despite their deep and disgusting history of racism), they feign being the party of minorities? Why do you think they openly invite every and any deviant behavior into their party? And, why do you think they keep them all ignorant, poor, and dependent on government?

Answer: power

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

The Democrat Plantation: Top Racist Quotes by Notable Left Wingers

 

[gnarlylove]

So what? I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.

Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.

If Wall St. is like you in ANY WAY they MUST oppose socialism tooth and nail. But why don't they?

Because only Wall St acts as profit-maximizers on the planet--they have no allegiance to policy and ideology, they follow where the money flows--and money flows with financial arbitrage. They don't care where they get the money, the fact is all they care about is making more of it.

This is not a positive contribution to society. This is arbitrage seeking ever increasing profits without the concern for how it effects society. Yet you shovel me complete BS about the ideals of the stock market.

Wall St. and the stock market were established under the pretense that it would help society, but in reality, there's a fair amount of harm resulting from this system. Many on Wall St. are money machines who only benefit those within the money business. The rest of society is left to pay for its negative contribution to society--its vacuum cleaner of money.

What you are doing is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Wall St. should deny socialism if they are to be exemplary capitalists. But like you said, they are just trying to make money and so they have no allegiance to principles, they have allegiance to money.

This damages the integrity of society. This is made worse by the fact those with an allegiance to money often harm rather than contribute to society. Some do make valuable contributions to society but they aren't the ones making the most money. The Stock Market is broken by the fact that egotistical shit holes seek profits above humanity. profits over the advancement of society. TO them the advancement of society is growing their wealth. This is by no means sustainable model for growth--infinite growth is not possible with a finite earth/resources.

Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality. You hypocrites go first.

You throw your hands up when it comes to explaining Wall St. motives but are so quick to put blame on lefttards. You are so hypocritical in your analysis you can't even see it because it's so dang obvious. I know you don't care but god you're posts are completely ignoble in the context of genuine debate. I guess that's not what we are trying to accomplish here anyway.

 

[P@triot]

Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?

I'd like to come back to this...

By the people coming together in classic town hall meeting, our problems could be resolved by ourselves. It's called compromise. Compromise isn't always possible but the IDEAL is that we can reach agreements on how to solve basic problems. Then the "government" or our representative simply enacts legislation based on our ability to agree on what solves a problem. I agree that majority rule based on 51% can cause serious problems--it's a recognition of the fallacy of popular opinion. You are making a fundamental point about logic.

Would this work in America today? FUCK NO. Our system depends on division and strife. People stick to their principles whether they have any relevance to solving a problem or not. I think once we overcome this and realize we are all humans with basic needs, that we must work together then we can genuinely solve our problems. The use of Democracy can lead to the resolution of many problems when humans seek solutions, not our ideologies.

In effect I'm saying the majority rule should only be reached when everyone agrees (of course there will be outliers and mental illness) but by being forced to unanimously agree we would hope that this requires serious thought instead of the current system of paying money to get "solutions" across. The problem is we don't live in a society that likes to work together in recognition of solidarity to solve our problems. We stick to ideals and slogans that prevent non-partisan ideas from flourishing. So no democracy can flourish when one side is always right, the other is always wrong, and the majority of Americans don't agree with either side!

Oh the irony... He's 100% accurate on what he says. But then he goes and stands with the very people who prevent this because they believe the federal government (through force via marxism) is the "solution".

Return to Constitutional government, force the federal government to adhere to the 18 enumerated powers delegated to them by the states (and only those 18 enumerated powers) and our problems would be forever solved. It really is that easy. But Dumbocrats are too stupid and too lazy to accept Constitutional government.

 

[gnarlylove]

I just said this wouldn't work in America. It was a hypothetical for dblack. What more do I need to say? You are just begging for conflict. Please lay off the cocaine and it might reduce your need to gab about nothing.