The flaw of capitalism is Income inequality

[Billy000]

Um no inflation does. Wages have been stagnant and productivity has skyrocketed for decades. Get a clue.

Wrong. inflation is a change in the value of money. That's like saying weather causes it to rain.

Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. When the government creates dollars out of nothing, then there are more dollars in circulation and each one is worth less. The price of money is where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect.

That's basic economics. That's why you believe all the nonsense you post in this forum: you don't understand the first thing about economics.

You're such an idiot. Of course inflation is change in value of money. That's why it dictates how much a wage is worth. Are you this dumb?

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

You do know moron the study of micro economics you also have to put history in fucking context

Again for the 100,000,000,000,000,000 time the nations of Europe and Asia were in ruins we were the only manufacturing nation on the block. We were an exporter nation till we finally started running a trade deficit mid 1980s.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

 

[Billy000]

Wrong. inflation is a change in the value of money. That's like saying weather causes it to rain.

Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. When the government creates dollars out of nothing, then there are more dollars in circulation and each one is worth less. The price of money is where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect.

That's basic economics. That's why you believe all the nonsense you post in this forum: you don't understand the first thing about economics.

You're such an idiot. Of course inflation is change in value of money. That's why it dictates how much a wage is worth. Are you this dumb?

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money.

You think investment will increase when government will take 90% of the profit? LOL!
Will you work more hours, or fewer, if the government took 90% of your income?

This is what passes for thought among liberals. This guy doesn't even know how wages are determined, but he's telling us what made the economy grow in the 1950s?

Christ you are so thick. When I say inflation decides the worth of wages, I am referring to what money BUYS. That is the worth of wages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong. inflation is a change in the value of money. That's like saying weather causes it to rain.

Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. When the government creates dollars out of nothing, then there are more dollars in circulation and each one is worth less. The price of money is where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect.

That's basic economics. That's why you believe all the nonsense you post in this forum: you don't understand the first thing about economics.

You're such an idiot. Of course inflation is change in value of money. That's why it dictates how much a wage is worth. Are you this dumb?

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

The effective tax rate was much lower than 90% because of all the deductions and tax shelters.

So they invest it to avoid taxation only to have all the return on their investment taxed away? Do you ever think about the idiocies you spew into this forum?

We had strong economic growth in the 50s because we had the only economy that wasn't bombed into the stone age during the war. If other countries wanted cars, heavy equipment, aircraft or computers, the USA was the only place they could get them.

Even if there were a lot of deductions and shelters which there really weren't, it wouldn't matter because we have those in spades in today's economy. Do you even know the effective tax rate on the wealthy? Of course not because you believe everything republicans and Fox News tells you.

Christ, given just how wealthy the top 1% is and how much they actually pay in taxes through the effective rate, do you really think they are going to invest when they already a save a shit load? Investment is down considerably from the 50s. These are facts.

Christ, given just how wealthy the top 1% is and how much they actually pay in taxes through the effective rate, do you really think they are going to invest when they already a save a shit load?

Yes, wealthy people are going to invest. It's how most of them got wealthy.
As far as effective rates, they pay higher rates than you.

 

[norwegen]

Income inequality is a flaw of capitalism?

Eh? A flaw?

If everyone's income were equal, wouldn't that be socialism?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong. inflation is a change in the value of money. That's like saying weather causes it to rain.

Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. When the government creates dollars out of nothing, then there are more dollars in circulation and each one is worth less. The price of money is where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect.

That's basic economics. That's why you believe all the nonsense you post in this forum: you don't understand the first thing about economics.

You're such an idiot. Of course inflation is change in value of money. That's why it dictates how much a wage is worth. Are you this dumb?

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

You do know moron the study of micro economics you also have to put history in fucking context

Again for the 100,000,000,000,000,000 time the nations of Europe and Asia were in ruins we were the only manufacturing nation on the block. We were an exporter nation till we finally started running a trade deficit mid 1980s.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

 

[Billy000]

Income inequality is a flaw of capitalism?

Eh? A flaw?

If everyone's income were equal, wouldn't that be socialism?

Growing income inequality is the flaw, not income inequality itself.

 

[Billy000]

You're such an idiot. Of course inflation is change in value of money. That's why it dictates how much a wage is worth. Are you this dumb?

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

You do know moron the study of micro economics you also have to put history in fucking context

Again for the 100,000,000,000,000,000 time the nations of Europe and Asia were in ruins we were the only manufacturing nation on the block. We were an exporter nation till we finally started running a trade deficit mid 1980s.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Conservatives answer this question: wages in the lower classes have remained stagnant for DECADES. What is the incentive for businesses to pay more if they can maximize their profits by keeping wages low? Corporate profits are already at an an all time high.

The ONLY way to boost wages for the poor is by raising the minimum wage. History has shown this to be true. More socialization in our private economy is the only way to save the middle class and keep the poor class from expanding. Eventually, the top heavy economy will cause a collapse from a lack of sufficient consumer spending.

Do I want to end the private market? Of course not. I just understand the need for government intervention and regulation.

MOTIVATION IN THE LOWER CLASSES HAVE REMAINED STAGNANT.

SOLUTION : ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE

YOU DON'T WANT LOW WAGES ? LEARN A MARKETABLE SKILL AND STOP DEMANDING THAT THE FASCIST STATE REGULATE CORPORATIONS AND ABOLISH CONFISCATORY TAXATION.


.

What exactly is your solution to these people learning new skills if they can't afford the education for it? 18 million people make less than 10.00 per hour. How many more do you think make less than 15 and have kids?

Lot of places train their own nowdays......guess libs have ruined votech schools too

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

You do know moron the study of micro economics you also have to put history in fucking context

Again for the 100,000,000,000,000,000 time the nations of Europe and Asia were in ruins we were the only manufacturing nation on the block. We were an exporter nation till we finally started running a trade deficit mid 1980s.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

 

[Billy000]

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

You do know moron the study of micro economics you also have to put history in fucking context

Again for the 100,000,000,000,000,000 time the nations of Europe and Asia were in ruins we were the only manufacturing nation on the block. We were an exporter nation till we finally started running a trade deficit mid 1980s.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

lol oh really? The borrowed to buy from us?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do know moron the study of micro economics you also have to put history in fucking context

Again for the 100,000,000,000,000,000 time the nations of Europe and Asia were in ruins we were the only manufacturing nation on the block. We were an exporter nation till we finally started running a trade deficit mid 1980s.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

lol oh really? The borrowed to buy from us?

Yes. Are you 12?

 

[Billy000]

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we? We were self sufficient.

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

lol oh really? The borrowed to buy from us?

Yes. Are you 12?

Lol apparently we had a lot of money to spare with all this lending.

 

[norwegen]

Income inequality is a flaw of capitalism?

Eh? A flaw?

If everyone's income were equal, wouldn't that be socialism?

Growing income inequality is the flaw, not income inequality itself.

Oh, a typo in the title. (Do typos include the omission of entire phrases?)

At any rate, if income inequality is in the nature of capitalism, then so is growing income inequality. People don't just stop acquiring wealth due to some innate, natural limitation. Nature - or God - doesn't just shut off the switch. And He doesn't just turn it on for the unproductive.

When growing disparities stop, capitalism stops.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lol if Europe was in ruins I guess we didn't have to rely much on trade now did we?

Where do you think those high middle class wages came from?
Building stuff to sell abroad, you dipshit.

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

lol oh really? The borrowed to buy from us?

Yes. Are you 12?

Lol apparently we had a lot of money to spare with all this lending.

Yes. Are you 12?

 

[Billy000]

Income inequality is a flaw of capitalism?

Eh? A flaw?

If everyone's income were equal, wouldn't that be socialism?

Growing income inequality is the flaw, not income inequality itself.

Oh, a typo in the title. (Do typos include the omission of entire phrases?)

At any rate, if income inequality is in the nature of capitalism, then so is growing income inequality. People don't just stop acquiring wealth due to some innate, natural limitation. Nature - or God - doesn't just shut off the switch. And He doesn't just turn it on for the unproductive.

When growing disparities stop, capitalism stops.

You know it doesn't take much thinking skills to understand the context of the phrase if you, you know, read the OP.

Um okay. My obvious point is that all of the income gains go to the top percent of earners. Don't you think that's a problem?

 

[Billy000]

Lol oh so they didn't have any to sell but they had plenty of capital to buy?

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

lol oh really? The borrowed to buy from us?

Yes. Are you 12?

Lol apparently we had a lot of money to spare with all this lending.

Yes. Are you 12?

Would you feel less emasculated if I said yes?

 

[norwegen]

Income inequality is a flaw of capitalism?

Eh? A flaw?

If everyone's income were equal, wouldn't that be socialism?

Growing income inequality is the flaw, not income inequality itself.

Oh, a typo in the title. (Do typos include the omission of entire phrases?)

At any rate, if income inequality is in the nature of capitalism, then so is growing income inequality. People don't just stop acquiring wealth due to some innate, natural limitation. Nature - or God - doesn't just shut off the switch. And He doesn't just turn it on for the unproductive.

When growing disparities stop, capitalism stops.

You know it doesn't take much thinking skills to understand the context of the phrase if you, you know, read the OP.

Um okay. My obvious point is that all of the income gains go to the top percent of earners. Don't you think that's a problem?

I don't read your OPs. I almost didn't read this post.

And working people get raises and promotions, too. What are you? 12?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They borrowed to rebuild. Durr.

lol oh really? The borrowed to buy from us?

Yes. Are you 12?

Lol apparently we had a lot of money to spare with all this lending.

Yes. Are you 12?

Would you feel less emasculated if I said yes?

It's obvious you're a child. A not very bright one.

 

[Billy000]

Income inequality is a flaw of capitalism?

Eh? A flaw?

If everyone's income were equal, wouldn't that be socialism?

Growing income inequality is the flaw, not income inequality itself.

Oh, a typo in the title. (Do typos include the omission of entire phrases?)

At any rate, if income inequality is in the nature of capitalism, then so is growing income inequality. People don't just stop acquiring wealth due to some innate, natural limitation. Nature - or God - doesn't just shut off the switch. And He doesn't just turn it on for the unproductive.

When growing disparities stop, capitalism stops.

You know it doesn't take much thinking skills to understand the context of the phrase if you, you know, read the OP.

Um okay. My obvious point is that all of the income gains go to the top percent of earners. Don't you think that's a problem?

I don't read your OPs. I almost didn't read this post.

And working people get raises and promotions, too. What are you? 12?

Oh right a grand total of 5% increase in the last several decades while the rest goes to the top 5% and 1% earners. Stop pretending that isn't a problem. You know it is.

 

[Norman]

Wrong. inflation is a change in the value of money. That's like saying weather causes it to rain.

Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. When the government creates dollars out of nothing, then there are more dollars in circulation and each one is worth less. The price of money is where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect.

That's basic economics. That's why you believe all the nonsense you post in this forum: you don't understand the first thing about economics.

You're such an idiot. Of course inflation is change in value of money. That's why it dictates how much a wage is worth. Are you this dumb?

I think someone needs to go back to school. If you can't even form a proper sentence, it's no wonder you have problems finding a job paying more than the minimum wage. Inflation does not dictate how much wages are worth, whatever that even means.

But all right, real wages have been stagnant for some time, therefore is it time to:

1. Go back to smaller government and taxation and to a time wages grew more rapidly, aka. Capitalism?
2: Increase taxation and size of the government even more aka. Socialism?

Glad we both agree...

Obviously we don't because as usual you are wrong. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet we had great economic growth. Why? Because the wealthy were forced to invest more to make money. Nowadays they don't have to invest as much because they just keep the ridiculous amount of money they save through a low EFFECTIVE tax rate.

The effective tax rate was much lower than 90% because of all the deductions and tax shelters.

So they invest it to avoid taxation only to have all the return on their investment taxed away? Do you ever think about the idiocies you spew into this forum?

We had strong economic growth in the 50s because we had the only economy that wasn't bombed into the stone age during the war. If other countries wanted cars, heavy equipment, aircraft or computers, the USA was the only place they could get them.

Even if there were a lot of deductions and shelters which there really weren't, it wouldn't matter because we have those in spades in today's economy. Do you even know the effective tax rate on the wealthy? Of course not because you believe everything republicans and Fox News tells you.

Christ, given just how wealthy the top 1% is and how much they actually pay in taxes through the effective rate, do you really think they are going to invest when they already a save a shit load? Investment is down considerably from the 50s. These are facts.

So, you are advocating embracing free markets and smaller government again then? Yes it did work better, you are right.Although, kind of defeats your original point.