What are your opinions about this "communist" video?

[Munin]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Munin]

And while you are at it, with the "communist bullshit".

Why not listen to what a capitalist Billionaire has to say about the same issue, so we could ballance the arguments:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc]A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Income inequality is the result of effort inequality. Equalizing outcomes is akin to discouraging success.

If you want to go with the redistributionist route to try to reduce this inequality, then enjoy watching your country turn out like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Greece, and the dozens of other hell-holes that tried your leftist policies.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's an infusion of nutter intellect! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Munin]

Yes true, those are the examples I also use when countering some communist argument from an opponent. I also deliberatly don't mention Scandinavian countries or other Western European countries with bigger socialist influence than you might think: the UK, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France (Bad example since you probably already hate the word before you red the first letter).

For example I never got how those higher taxed Scandinavian countries can keep their wealth. Yet, they still have companies that are profitable like IKEA, Nokia (wel not anymore ), all the German car companies (BMW, Mercedes, Porche, ...)




Let s compare Sweden with its high taxes & swedish debt:
Taxation in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
32% of GDP (the USA has a debt of 71.43% of GDP)
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I m not saying that high taxes are the best solution, but I do agree at least that at least equally taxing the rich on the same level as the poor is a good thing.

I ve always been against demonizing the rich, just because they are rich. I think if you target them, they just move their money to another country. But I also find it problematic with the consequence of this assumption, it is that you are forced to let others pay for the equal share of the taxes the rich should pay.

 

[TNHarley]

only the strong survive
people that live by that are the successful ones
they built their shit, they deserve it

 

[Two Thumbs]

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

 

[Two Thumbs]

people don't understand the 80 - 20 rule.

The top 20% make 80% of the money, while the bottom 80 make 20.

It sucks for the cry babies that want more, but you can't mandate fairness.

 

[tyroneweaver]

so if the top 1% were to have their taxes increased, what income level would that start at?

And the problem I have with that is, gov. just flitters this money down a ####hole.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The income graph is true, but what he neglects to tell you is:

Since 99% of Americans can only afford to pay $2 for a loaf of bread, bread will never be more than $2, even if the top 1% had $1,000,000,000,000,000

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

The income graph is true, but what he neglects to tell you is:

Since 99% of Americans can only afford to pay $2 for a loaf of bread, bread will never be more than $2, even if the top 1% had $1,000,000,000,000,000

Also, a poor person today has a living standard that far surpasses that of a king just 50 or so years ago in many respects.

The average poor person in America has a computer with Internet, a TV, a dishwasher, a car, air conditioning, central heating, a washer/dryer, and a cell phone that has more memory on it than could be filled in an entire room a few decades ago.

I'd rather have the America-style inequality where the difference between the poor and the rich is at it is now rather than some socialist hellhole where the difference between the poorest/richest members of a village is a rusted out bike, a few sacks of rice, and a good pair of shoes.

 

[HenryBHough]

Survival of the fittest would result in prosperity for all.

Artificial survival of the weakest results (no "would" about it) a descent into universal poverty.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The income graph is true, but what he neglects to tell you is:

Since 99% of Americans can only afford to pay $2 for a loaf of bread, bread will never be more than $2, even if the top 1% had $1,000,000,000,000,000

Also, a poor person today has a living standard that far surpasses that of a king just 50 or so years ago in many respects.

The average poor person in America has a computer with Internet, a TV, a dishwasher, a car, air conditioning, central heating, a washer/dryer, and a cell phone that has more memory on it than could be filled in an entire room a few decades ago.

I'd rather have the America-style inequality where the difference between the poor and the rich is at it is now rather than some socialist hellhole where the difference between the poorest/richest members of a village is a rusted out bike, a few sacks of rice, and a good pair of shoes.

Let's extend my example. Now suppose you distributed that one-quadrillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000,000) among all the people equally, leaving everyone with approximately (divide by 300,000,000 people) 3 million dollars.

The price of bread would skyrocket to about $20,000

While the money all shifted back to the producers, there would be massive amount of economic turbulence, because people who eat more than others, would go bankrupt, and start starving, while people who eat little, would still have hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue purchasing food for months to come, preventing the prices from returning to a normal $2 per loaf for a couple of years.

And yes, eventually, (assuming no more intervention), the economy would stabilize and bread would return to that happy $2 mark, after millions starved to death.

 

[Munin]

Interesting theory, let s see if we can say that Swedish Bread is incredibly expensive?

Let s see at the price of Bread in Sweden, according to what I found it is about 10 SEK (Swedish Currency) => This is about $ 1.56209 for 1 Bread

& also see how expensive Sweden is because of different income disparity:
Food and gas prices in Sweden today


And to show you that there is a different income disparity in Sweden: Swedish inequality datapoint of the day | Felix Salmon




Some interesting graphs:


A pie chart of Wealth distribution in a country, I think Green are the richest people then comes purple as second richest, then ... (counterclockwise)

source: http://daughternumberthree.blogspot.be/2010/10/unequal-american-pie.html


Also interesting world map comparison:
The higher the Gini number the bigger the gap between rich & poor, the lower the number the lower the gap and the more equal the income of people living there.

The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents.

I think many could agree that a lot of the Green countries are very rich countries: so it does not entirely make sense to claim that all more equally paid countries are people going after the Communist example, Germany for example shows to be one of the greenest countries (most equal income countries).




Yes I don't think we should go for the communist system where we all should have equal pay, no way in hell should a train conductor earn as much as a doctor who had to go to university school for 7 years or a engineer that had to go to university for 5 years. But the other extreme is the one the US is on right now, that to me doesn't seem healthy too.

 

[g5000]

There is natural wealth concentration, and unnatural wealth concentration.

Natural wealth concentration happens when someone invents a better mousetrap and the world beats a path to their door.


One of conservative hero Thomas Jefferson's chief concerns about our new nation was to avoid the unnatural concentration of wealth, which is why he said there could never be too much legislation to fight it, and why he said we needed a progressive taxation system.


Today, we have a massively unnatural concentration of wealth.

There are a variety of means by which the federal government creates an unnatural concentration of wealth and tilts the playing field in favor of entrenched and bloated business entities.

One means is by putting preemption clauses in federal legislation which overrides state laws. State laws which are designed to protect the American public are regularly preempted by Congress. I think you would be amazed how frequently this occurs. This is the biggest reason for why we need to repeal the 17th amendment.

Another means is by enacting Byzantine regulatory hurdles whose costs large established corporations can absorb, which newer and more efficient entries into the field cannot.

Conversely, it is easier for a business sector to capture a single federal regulator than it is to capture 50 state regulators. This way they can prey upon the public without fear of prosecution.

So in some ways, we need less regulation. In other ways, we need better regulation, and even, in some cases, more regulation. We are not living in accordance with Jefferson's dream. At all.

 

[Munin]

Income inequality is the result of effort inequality. Equalizing outcomes is akin to discouraging success.

If you want to go with the redistributionist route to try to reduce this inequality, then enjoy watching your country turn out like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Greece, and the dozens of other hell-holes that tried your leftist policies.

Yes but if we look at the Chart I just posted, then you would say that it should be highly unlikely that succesfull businesses come from green Countries: Right?

IKEA, BMW, Porche, Audi, VW, Mercedes, ABB, Nestlé, Ferrari, ... Seem to be companies that contradict this story. Not to mention that it is likely that the beer you are drinking now or just after reading this post is owned by a foreign Beer company with a Socialist prime minister ... and he s gay (Anheuser-Busch InBev => original company = "Inbev"). I hope you didn't just spill your beer and fell of your chair

It should then also be impossible for a car Company from like Japan called Toyota with better Income disparity than the US to beat US car companies, like Japanese brands have done. Yes, there are probably other reasons too

 

[Munin]

Also an interesting theory: What will happen if the richest class of people gain up to 95% of the Wealth of a country.

Is Democracy still worth something? Can the Rich not just buy their representatives?

We could make the election into an auction, to see which rich guy buys the election! Oh wait ... we re already past that point

It kind of stunning for a country that got rid of a monarchy upper class, just to find out they switched to an American version of it that now owns all the wealth. And if the american dream is true, and you believe that people who work hard earn more. Does this Chart then say Americans are lazy bums?


And how long before we find a rich guy that tries to buy himself the presidency? Like a billionaire? ... Oh wait ...



I kinda liked the American dream created by Ford, where employees were able to buy the car they produced. But that s gone now, I guess we don't tolerate him anymore as he is an evil "socialist". And seems like me believing in the same thing as Ford, also makes me one.

 

[g5000]

Income inequality is the result of effort inequality. Equalizing outcomes is akin to discouraging success.

This isn't about equalizing outcomes. This is about leveling the playing field.

 

[hazlnut]

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

Why do YOU think it's communist?

Were you being ironic or do you really not understand the word "communism" -- in terms of political theory and history.

 

[Munin]

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

Why do YOU think it's communist?

Were you being ironic or do you really not understand the word "communism" -- in terms of political theory and history.

I didn't, but I think some more extreme right wing people might call it communist. Which is why I used the "".

I do understand it what it is in terms of theory & history, but I also understand that this is ignored by most people and now less and less used as an actual term to discribe something from the past. And more like an insult for the present, just like the word "fascist" or "nazi".

These words (communist & fascist) are rarely used properly, so I must adapt to use it like people now use them now. Otherwise it might seem like I m talking in a whole other language and that wouldn't make any sense or would it?


And why a lot of more right wing people might think it is a communist video: The video does seem to promote socialist ideas of wealth redistribution.