Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[georgephillip]

I have to agree with you dblack. Capitalism has infused itself into our political process. Our current form of government has little to do with Democracy... or even a Democratic Republic. It is very much corrupted into a Plutocracy.

One of the scariest things, in my opinion, is how little contract the v. rich have with their victims.

Particularly if you believe money is a commodity.

"There’s a great WSJ blog called 'The Wealth Report' by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called 'Richistan' in which he makes a case that the world’s wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (let’s call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. ("Who’s your household manager?").'"

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

Most of the richest 1% live in gated bubbles where they seldom come in contact with those who are not rich. More than a few of the rich probably believe they have earned their money.

That's scary.

The zero sum game is a myth perpetuated by the class envy pro-socialism crowd.
Money......is a commodity only in which currencies are traded on a commodities exchange.
Wealth, is not a commodity. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum.
Your theory says this:...When there is a multi million dollar lottery winner, by design all others have had money taken from them by the lottery winner. That is incredibly stupid. And it's false.

How many others can possess your money at the same time you do?

If 300,000 US households increase their wealth by $10M per household that removes $3 T from the other 98% of US households.

Your lottery winner's money came from other people, correct?
A better analogy for US wealth distribution is poker.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

"Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

BTW, all those high rollers at Table 1 didn't earn their money.
They bribed politicians to give it to them.
Opposing that is not wealth envy.
It's economic justice.

 

[Lars]

Without the State, corporations would not exist.
Capitalists would have no courts, schools or access to the US 5th Fleet.

Corporations are the creatures of government; are you proposing changing government's role in society?

What do you see as a possible alternative?

Exactly, so corporations are a product of the State. Not that I think there is anything inherently wrong about a corporation, but the notion that certain firms should receive special privileges through a biased licensing system is antithetical to free market values.

Capitalists would most certainly have courts in a stateless society, there just wouldn't havea universal court system, rather a polycentric legal system which individuals and firms would subscribe to for legal protection. So i guess there could be a situation in a stateless society where a certain legal system would accommodate for corporate licensing. But I am not advocating lawlessness, I am advocating voluntaryism. There is a difference between a Government and a State. They are not necessarily one in the same.

Is this an accurate thumbnail account of a polycentric legal system?

"Tom W. Bell, former director of telecommunications and technology studies at Cato Institute[1], now a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in California[2] wrote 'Polycentric Law,' published by the Institute for Humane Studies when he was a law student at the University of Chicago.

"In it he notes that others use phrases such as 'privately produced law,' 'purely private law' and 'non-monopolistic law' to describe these polycentric alternatives.[3] He outlines traditional customary law (also known as consuetudinary law) before the creation of states, including as described by Friedrich A. Hayek, Bruce L. Benson and David D. Friedman.

"He mentions Anglo-Saxon customary law, church law, guild law and merchant law as examples of polycentric law. He notes that customary and statutory law have co-existed through history, as when Roman law applied to Romans throughout the Roman Empire, but indigenous legal systems were permitted for non-Romans.[3]

"In 'Polycentric Law in the New Millennium,' which won first place in the Mont Pelerin Society's 1998 Friedrich A. Hayek Fellowship competition, Bell predicts three areas where polycentric law might develop: alternative dispute resolution, private communities, and the Internet."



Who would control the monopoly of violence in a private law system?

That is a fair characterization. Iceland had a similar setup from 874-1096.

The point is there would be no monopoly on the law, a monopoly would no exist, thus why it is called a polycentric as opposed to a monolithic legal system.

 

[thereisnospoon]

One of the scariest things, in my opinion, is how little contract the v. rich have with their victims.

Particularly if you believe money is a commodity.

"There’s a great WSJ blog called 'The Wealth Report' by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called 'Richistan' in which he makes a case that the world’s wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (let’s call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. ("Who’s your household manager?").'"

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

Most of the richest 1% live in gated bubbles where they seldom come in contact with those who are not rich. More than a few of the rich probably believe they have earned their money.

That's scary.

The zero sum game is a myth perpetuated by the class envy pro-socialism crowd.
Money......is a commodity only in which currencies are traded on a commodities exchange.
Wealth, is not a commodity. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum.
Your theory says this:...When there is a multi million dollar lottery winner, by design all others have had money taken from them by the lottery winner. That is incredibly stupid. And it's false.

How many others can possess your money at the same time you do?

If 300,000 US households increase their wealth by $10M per household that removes $3 T from the other 98% of US households.

Your lottery winner's money came from other people, correct?
A better analogy for US wealth distribution is poker.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

"Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

BTW, all those high rollers at Table 1 didn't earn their money.
They bribed politicians to give it to them.
Opposing that is not wealth envy.
It's economic justice.

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly, so corporations are a product of the State. Not that I think there is anything inherently wrong about a corporation, but the notion that certain firms should receive special privileges through a biased licensing system is antithetical to free market values.

Capitalists would most certainly have courts in a stateless society, there just wouldn't havea universal court system, rather a polycentric legal system which individuals and firms would subscribe to for legal protection. So i guess there could be a situation in a stateless society where a certain legal system would accommodate for corporate licensing. But I am not advocating lawlessness, I am advocating voluntaryism. There is a difference between a Government and a State. They are not necessarily one in the same.

Is this an accurate thumbnail account of a polycentric legal system?

"Tom W. Bell, former director of telecommunications and technology studies at Cato Institute[1], now a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in California[2] wrote 'Polycentric Law,' published by the Institute for Humane Studies when he was a law student at the University of Chicago.

"In it he notes that others use phrases such as 'privately produced law,' 'purely private law' and 'non-monopolistic law' to describe these polycentric alternatives.[3] He outlines traditional customary law (also known as consuetudinary law) before the creation of states, including as described by Friedrich A. Hayek, Bruce L. Benson and David D. Friedman.

"He mentions Anglo-Saxon customary law, church law, guild law and merchant law as examples of polycentric law. He notes that customary and statutory law have co-existed through history, as when Roman law applied to Romans throughout the Roman Empire, but indigenous legal systems were permitted for non-Romans.[3]

"In 'Polycentric Law in the New Millennium,' which won first place in the Mont Pelerin Society's 1998 Friedrich A. Hayek Fellowship competition, Bell predicts three areas where polycentric law might develop: alternative dispute resolution, private communities, and the Internet."



Who would control the monopoly of violence in a private law system?

That is a fair characterization. Iceland had a similar setup from 874-1096.

The point is there would be no monopoly on the law, a monopoly would no exist, thus why it is called a polycentric as opposed to a monolithic legal system.

Would police and fire protection be public or private?

Who would have power of arrest and confinement?

Based on what little I've read so far, it sounds like a legal system designed to segregate and legally insulate the richest members of society from the majority.

 

[Lars]

Is this an accurate thumbnail account of a polycentric legal system?

"Tom W. Bell, former director of telecommunications and technology studies at Cato Institute[1], now a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in California[2] wrote 'Polycentric Law,' published by the Institute for Humane Studies when he was a law student at the University of Chicago.

"In it he notes that others use phrases such as 'privately produced law,' 'purely private law' and 'non-monopolistic law' to describe these polycentric alternatives.[3] He outlines traditional customary law (also known as consuetudinary law) before the creation of states, including as described by Friedrich A. Hayek, Bruce L. Benson and David D. Friedman.

"He mentions Anglo-Saxon customary law, church law, guild law and merchant law as examples of polycentric law. He notes that customary and statutory law have co-existed through history, as when Roman law applied to Romans throughout the Roman Empire, but indigenous legal systems were permitted for non-Romans.[3]

"In 'Polycentric Law in the New Millennium,' which won first place in the Mont Pelerin Society's 1998 Friedrich A. Hayek Fellowship competition, Bell predicts three areas where polycentric law might develop: alternative dispute resolution, private communities, and the Internet."



Who would control the monopoly of violence in a private law system?

That is a fair characterization. Iceland had a similar setup from 874-1096.

The point is there would be no monopoly on the law, a monopoly would no exist, thus why it is called a polycentric as opposed to a monolithic legal system.

Would police and fire protection be public or private?

Who would have power of arrest and confinement?

Based on what little I've read so far, it sounds like a legal system designed to segregate and legally insulate the richest members of society from the majority.

Police and fire protection would be paid for on a voluntary basis for those who wanted such protections.

Powers of Arrest and Confinement would be agreed upon by members of the voluntary society, and written down in legal code. I assume a private police force would, though that would vary from society to society.

I suppose individuals could most certainly insulate themselves from legal codes, or form their legal code with other consenting individuals, regardless of their wealth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Democracy is 6 out of 10 people saying slavery is legal and fine.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Democracy is 51 % of the people telling the other 49% what is normal.

 

[georgephillip]

The zero sum game is a myth perpetuated by the class envy pro-socialism crowd.
Money......is a commodity only in which currencies are traded on a commodities exchange.
Wealth, is not a commodity. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum.
Your theory says this:...When there is a multi million dollar lottery winner, by design all others have had money taken from them by the lottery winner. That is incredibly stupid. And it's false.

How many others can possess your money at the same time you do?

If 300,000 US households increase their wealth by $10M per household that removes $3 T from the other 98% of US households.

Your lottery winner's money came from other people, correct?
A better analogy for US wealth distribution is poker.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

"Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

BTW, all those high rollers at Table 1 didn't earn their money.
They bribed politicians to give it to them.
Opposing that is not wealth envy.
It's economic justice.

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

If there's no system of wealth distribution in this country, how do 10,000 "earners" acquire 30% of total US income every year?

You continually fall back on the conservative default position of attacking me for whining while ignoring the issue of rising income inequality in this country and the threat it poses to democracy.

Maybe you should step out of the echo chamber?

 

[georgephillip]

Democracy is 6 out of 10 people saying slavery is legal and fine.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Democracy is 51 % of the people telling the other 49% what is normal.

What is plutocracy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

How many others can possess your money at the same time you do?

If 300,000 US households increase their wealth by $10M per household that removes $3 T from the other 98% of US households.

Your lottery winner's money came from other people, correct?
A better analogy for US wealth distribution is poker.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

"Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

BTW, all those high rollers at Table 1 didn't earn their money.
They bribed politicians to give it to them.
Opposing that is not wealth envy.
It's economic justice.

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

If there's no system of wealth distribution in this country, how do 10,000 "earners" acquire 30% of total US income every year?

You continually fall back on the conservative default position of attacking me for whining while ignoring the issue of rising income inequality in this country and the threat it poses to democracy.

Maybe you should step out of the echo chamber?

Income whether it be from labor, dividends, gambling winnings, maturing securities, etc is not the same as wealth creation.
For example......A coin collector goes to a show and purchases rare coins. 5 years later, the coins become significantly more valuable. That represents the creation of wealth.
Another example. A married couple buys a piece of property as an investment. A few years later, the property has appreciated in value. Again, this is the creation of wealth.
75 years ago, a little girl's grandfather buys her stock in the Coca- Cola Corp. The little girl, now a grandmother herself, takes some of that stock and sells it to use the money
to pay for her three oldest grandchildren's college education...Wealth had been created and served a very noble purpose.
There is no "income gap". There are simply more people either earning more or creating more wealth. Either way, they affect only themselves by earning/creating wealth.
Based on your theory there should be fewer and fewer people becoming wealthy because as you say, there is less money to go around.
Now any person with half a brain can see the logic.
Stop whining.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How many others can possess your money at the same time you do?

If 300,000 US households increase their wealth by $10M per household that removes $3 T from the other 98% of US households.

Your lottery winner's money came from other people, correct?
A better analogy for US wealth distribution is poker.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

"Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

BTW, all those high rollers at Table 1 didn't earn their money.
They bribed politicians to give it to them.
Opposing that is not wealth envy.
It's economic justice.

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

If there's no system of wealth distribution in this country, how do 10,000 "earners" acquire 30% of total US income every year?

You continually fall back on the conservative default position of attacking me for whining while ignoring the issue of rising income inequality in this country and the threat it poses to democracy.

Maybe you should step out of the echo chamber?

BTW, you can go and find where it says there is a guarantee to equality of income.

 

[westwall]

Who decides what the Constitution says?

The English language? What a stupid question.

Reasonable people often disagree about the meaning of some of the words and phrases that make up the Constitution.

How do you propose resolving those disagreements?

Rapiers, out behind the shed at noon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Democracy is 6 out of 10 people saying slavery is legal and fine.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Democracy is 51 % of the people telling the other 49% what is normal.

What is plutocracy?

What is the title of the thread?
Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not
Don't like the answers you get don't start a thread about Democracy being a part of freedom. With a Democracy you're only allowed the freedoms 51% of the people allow you to have.

 

[westwall]

How many others can possess your money at the same time you do?

If 300,000 US households increase their wealth by $10M per household that removes $3 T from the other 98% of US households.

Your lottery winner's money came from other people, correct?
A better analogy for US wealth distribution is poker.

"The main problem with the system of distribution of wealth in this country is the TOTAL LACK of distribution. Of course you don’t see that when you are in the deep end of the distribution pool… 10,000 people make 30% of the income in the United States of America and the next 29.99M people make another 40% and the next 30M people make 12% and THE OTHER 240M people have to fight over the remaining 18%.

"This is your idea of fair?

"Let’s say it’s a poker tournament:

"Table 1 has 10,000 people who have $1M each to play with
Table 2 (top 10-0.01%) has 30M people who have $433 each to play with
Table 3 (top 20-10%) has 30M people who have $133 each to play with
Table 4 (bottom 60%) has 240M people who have $25 each to play with."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

BTW, all those high rollers at Table 1 didn't earn their money.
They bribed politicians to give it to them.
Opposing that is not wealth envy.
It's economic justice.

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

If there's no system of wealth distribution in this country, how do 10,000 "earners" acquire 30% of total US income every year?

You continually fall back on the conservative default position of attacking me for whining while ignoring the issue of rising income inequality in this country and the threat it poses to democracy.

Maybe you should step out of the echo chamber?

Here's how they do it. They produce something that everybody wants. They charge a buck for it. 100 million people think they just have to have it. They're out a buck and the producer has 50 million bucks after manufacturing costs. That's how it's done junior. No slavery, no victims, just people making things that other people want.

 

[Avatar4321]

Capitalism is merely people freely making their own decisions on what to buy and sell.

 

[westwall]

Democracy is 6 out of 10 people saying slavery is legal and fine.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Democracy is 51 % of the people telling the other 49% what is normal.

What is plutocracy?

What is the title of the thread?
Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not
Don't like the answers you get don't start a thread about Democracy being a part of freedom. With a Democracy you're only allowed the freedoms 51% of the people allow you to have.

Exactly. That's why the founders created the US as a constitutional Republic, to keep idiots like georgie here from stealing from those who earn it or make it. What a pathetic twerp.

 

[georgephillip]

That is a fair characterization. Iceland had a similar setup from 874-1096.

The point is there would be no monopoly on the law, a monopoly would no exist, thus why it is called a polycentric as opposed to a monolithic legal system.

Would police and fire protection be public or private?

Who would have power of arrest and confinement?

Based on what little I've read so far, it sounds like a legal system designed to segregate and legally insulate the richest members of society from the majority.

Police and fire protection would be paid for on a voluntary basis for those who wanted such protections.

Powers of Arrest and Confinement would be agreed upon by members of the voluntary society, and written down in legal code. I assume a private police force would, though that would vary from society to society.

I suppose individuals could most certainly insulate themselves from legal codes, or form their legal code with other consenting individuals, regardless of their wealth.

Only citizens capable of paying for private police and fire protection would be protected?

Tom Bell's three areas where polycentric law might develop included gated communities and dispute resolution. With regard to those two areas, the privatization of public safety sounds like a dagger through the heart of equal justice before the law.

There seems to have been a fairly consistent if uneven trend over the last few thousand years from slavery toward equality. Polycentric law would reverse that progression, imho.

 

[georgephillip]

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

If there's no system of wealth distribution in this country, how do 10,000 "earners" acquire 30% of total US income every year?

You continually fall back on the conservative default position of attacking me for whining while ignoring the issue of rising income inequality in this country and the threat it poses to democracy.

Maybe you should step out of the echo chamber?

Income whether it be from labor, dividends, gambling winnings, maturing securities, etc is not the same as wealth creation.
For example......A coin collector goes to a show and purchases rare coins. 5 years later, the coins become significantly more valuable. That represents the creation of wealth.
Another example. A married couple buys a piece of property as an investment. A few years later, the property has appreciated in value. Again, this is the creation of wealth.
75 years ago, a little girl's grandfather buys her stock in the Coca- Cola Corp. The little girl, now a grandmother herself, takes some of that stock and sells it to use the money
to pay for her three oldest grandchildren's college education...Wealth had been created and served a very noble purpose.
There is no "income gap". There are simply more people either earning more or creating more wealth. Either way, they affect only themselves by earning/creating wealth.
Based on your theory there should be fewer and fewer people becoming wealthy because as you say, there is less money to go around.
Now any person with half a brain can see the logic.
Stop whining.

"There is no income gap."

You should write CBS:

"The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.

"The top-earning 20 percent of Americans - those making more than $100,000 each year - received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures.

"That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/national/main6907321.shtml

 

[georgephillip]

Nice try. All who do not participate in the lottery, have no interest. Therefore they are out not a penny.
There is no "system of distribution"....
Once again, you've posted a passage from a blog that supports your "victim" status.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfortunate you feel about yourself, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT......All you've done here is whine about capitalism. Perhaps if you'd elected to participate rather than sit on the sidelines and whine, you'd be in a better position.
Look, the Padre is waiting at the door. He'll punch your ticket for you.
Stop whining and get off your ass and help yourself.

If there's no system of wealth distribution in this country, how do 10,000 "earners" acquire 30% of total US income every year?

You continually fall back on the conservative default position of attacking me for whining while ignoring the issue of rising income inequality in this country and the threat it poses to democracy.

Maybe you should step out of the echo chamber?

BTW, you can go and find where it says there is a guarantee to equality of income.

The ever-widening income gap in the US is proof of lack of equal opportunity to bribe Republicans AND Democrats for favorable FIRE sector-friendly tax and spend policy.

Remember the $13 trillion bail out that nearly doubled the richest 2% of Americans share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation?

Why do you cling to the delusion the richest 10,000 Americans earn every dollar?

They use government to socialize cost and privatize profit exactly like all economic elites since the Fall of Man have.

 

[dblack]

Here's how they do it. They produce something that everybody wants. They charge a buck for it. 100 million people think they just have to have it. They're out a buck and the producer has 50 million bucks after manufacturing costs. That's how it's done junior. No slavery, no victims, just people making things that other people want.

That's one way they 'do it'. But there are others. Like, for instance, taking crazy speculative risks and leaning on taxpayer money for a bailout when their plans fall apart. Or lobbying congress for mandates to insure themselves as steady supply of customers, even as their products cost more and more, and become worth less and less. Or pushing for unnecessary wars and foreign policy that will enrich military contractors and manipulate overseas markets to favor their interests. Or blackmailing communities to demand special favors and tax breaks. Etc, etc, etc...

There are plenty of success stories to validate the ideal view of capitalism, but there are plenty of examples where people and businesses enrich themselves via corrupt political influence rather than by providing products and services people want. I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that and taking action to stop it.

 

[bripat9643]

"There is no income gap."

You should write CBS:

"The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.

What do leftwingers like you propose to do about it? Saddle them with paying 60% of their income in taxes to support Medicare and Social Security so the Greedy Geezers won't have to spend one minute off of the golf course?

Yes, that's exactly what you propose.

Libs are so compassionate.

"The top-earning 20 percent of Americans - those making more than $100,000 each year - received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures.

What did you expect, the top 20% to have a smaller share of national income than the bottom 20%? Turds like you post these figures as if people are supposed to be shocked by them. Only the math challenged would find anything to marvel about when presented with these numbers.