Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

http://www.michaelshouse.com/drug-addiction/drug-addiction-statistics/

•In 2010 there was an estimated 22.6 million Americans over the age of 12 that were current or former illicit drug users within the last month of when the survey was given; This equates to about 8.9 percent of the population aged 12 or older.
•The drug marijuana was the most commonly used illegal substance. There was about 17.4 million individuals who used it in the past month from when the survey was taken. From 2007 and 2010, those numbers increased to 6.9 percent, up from 5.8 or 14.4 million to 17.4 million users.
•Individuals 50 to 59 years of age, their rate of past drug use went up from 2.7 percent to 5.8 percent from 2002 to 2010
•An estimated 10.0 million individual 12 to 20 years of age that admitted to being drinkers; 6.5 million were binge drinkers and 2.0 million heavy drinkers.
•Over six million children in America live with at least one parent who has a drug addiction.
•Since 1980, the number of deaths related to drug overdoses has risen over 540 percent.
•The most commonly abused drug (other than alcohol) in the United States by individuals over the age of 12 is Marijuana, followed by prescription painkillers, cocaine and hallucinogens.
•Each year, drug abuse and drug addiction cost employers over 122 billion dollar in lost productivity time and another 15 billion dollars in health insurance costs.
•Baltimore, Maryland has more per capita individuals living with heroin addiction than any other state in the U.S.
•Since 1990, the number of individuals who take prescription drugs illegally is believed to have risen by over 500 percent.

THe good idea is to pay these people to be worthless drug addicts. What an EXCELLENT PLAN.

I don't buy this crap. Neither pot, nor Ecstasy, nor hallucinogens create an addiction, and those are the most popular illegal drugs. The real drug addicts compose at most 2-3% of US population.

The real problem is the growing income gap between the top 1% and lower 80%.

I understamd your need to believe this. It's one of the reasons it has gotten so bad. The REAL problem are the ones who work and don't take drugs.

I don't "need" to believe in anything. But I don't deny the facts either.
 
I don't buy this crap. Neither pot, nor Ecstasy, nor hallucinogens create an addiction, and those are the most popular illegal drugs. The real drug addicts compose at most 2-3% of US population.

The real problem is the growing income gap between the top 1% and lower 80%.

I understamd your need to believe this. It's one of the reasons it has gotten so bad. The REAL problem are the ones who work and don't take drugs.

I don't "need" to believe in anything. But I don't deny the facts either.

Odd, because you just did. And you did it because you have a need to believe something other than the facts.
 
And because it is not fair -- the rich are a part of the society and they owe their fortunes to it. Otherwise they would live on an inhabited island.

There you go, show your ignorance for all to see.

It's not fair!! :lmao:

Why not just start posting the fallacious details of the exploitation theory too. We have way too many of these types in this country.

The right types are like bots -- they don't think, they look for patterns. If you mention inequality, they see the pattern -- class warfare! Marx!

No, I don't believe in rich exploiting the rest of us because I believe we have a working democracy. The rising inequality is the result of the market forces reacting to the technological shocks -- that's why I made a reference to "Player Piano".

But that does not mean we should accept this outcome. Free market is not a goal in itself, it is merely an instrument we are using to achieve high living standards. It is not a perfect force, that's why we should not hesitate if we have to make adjustments to the outcome.

Holy crutches.

First Im not a "right type".

Second, democracy is not an economic system, it's a political one.

Last, we don't have free markets. Which is by definition (not exclusively) why we don't have capitalism anymore. We have totalitarian economic controllers. You're one of those "really dizzy" types.
 
Where in the US Constitution does it say it is the Federal Government's job to redistribute the incomes of its' citizens?

The founding fathers did not believe in income redistribution that is exactly why it is not there.

Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[20] James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is America's most famous black conservative author "Attempts to redistribute wealth repeatedly led to the redistribution of poverty."
 
Last edited:
Where in the US Constitution does it say it is the Federal Government's job to redistribute the incomes of its' citizens?

The founding fathers did not believe in income redistribution that is exactly why it is not there.

Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[20] James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is America's most famous black conservative author "Attempts to redistribute wealth repeatedly led to the redistribution of poverty."

Repeating slogans doesn't help. We have the middle class incomes stagnant for the past 30 years despite the impressive economic growth over that period. Rising inequality hurts the middle class, and that's a fact.

The question is are we going to fix this bad situation, or we keep hiding behind the empty slogans.
 
The question is are we going to fix this bad situation, or we keep hiding behind the empty slogans.

This is a race to the bottom. In order for any fix to happen, it has to come with popular opinion of what to do. Right now, what we have are people screaming for the rich to get taxed more. I have news for you, that isn't going to work. Our government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Giving them more money to misappropriate isn't going to fix anything. It will take more venture capital money out of the private sector and give it to failing and wasteful public works. All that will happen is your "income inequality" slogan will mean we're all getting less wealthy.

His "slogans" are not slogans, those are the minds that built the greatest constitution on earth until subverts came along and perverted it.
 
Where in the US Constitution does it say it is the Federal Government's job to redistribute the incomes of its' citizens?

The founding fathers did not believe in income redistribution that is exactly why it is not there.

Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[20] James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is America's most famous black conservative author "Attempts to redistribute wealth repeatedly led to the redistribution of poverty."
When federal and state constitutions, gave government the power to levy taxes, it gave government the power to redistribute the wealth.

We've been redistributing the wealth since before the founding of the country. The colonies imposed faculty taxes – which combined the characteristics of income and property taxes on their citizens. After the country was founded, we never stopped redistributing the wealth. While federal taxes on income came about with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the government collected taxes, mostly in the form of tariffs, from the very beginning. By 1796, 14 of the 15 states then in existence levied property taxes; Delaware also taxed any income people derived from their property.

These taxes financed federal and state governments – they redistributed wealth from property owners and importers to the population as a whole. So it's a simple indisputable fact, that the Founding Fathers so revered by the Tea Partiers were very much in favor of wealth redistribution.
 
Giving them more money to misappropriate isn't going to fix anything.


*****Bush 43 introduced the first $2 trillion budget and the first $3 trillion budget; now BO is at $4 trillion. If increased spending was going to help we'd be in heaven right now.

It's like H Ross Perot said, "they[ liberals] can waste all the money that there is"
 
The question is are we going to fix this bad situation, or we keep hiding behind the empty slogans.

This is a race to the bottom. In order for any fix to happen, it has to come with popular opinion of what to do. Right now, what we have are people screaming for the rich to get taxed more. I have news for you, that isn't going to work.

You are wrong.

Our government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.

Wrong again.

Giving them more money to misappropriate isn't going to fix anything. It will take more venture capital money out of the private sector and give it to failing and wasteful public works.

What public works are you talking about? Are you still trying to prove Marx wrong?

We don't need more "public works". We need more taxes on the rich to pay more for things like Medicare, Social Secuirity and the military.

those are the minds that built the greatest constitution on earth until subverts came along and perverted it.

Look at the calendar, we are not living in 18 century anymore.
 
Giving them more money to misappropriate isn't going to fix anything.


*****Bush 43 introduced the first $2 trillion budget and the first $3 trillion budget; now BO is at $4 trillion. If increased spending was going to help we'd be in heaven right now.

Did it ever come to you that aside from heaven there are less pleasant places? The increased spending helped us to stay out from hell..
 
Marx is wrong, was wrong and will always be wrong.

If you really like Marx, there are plenty of Marxist societies that offer nothing.
 
I'm not wrong by default because the moron that wants me to read fiction to better understand economics and then turns to a "working democracy" as the answer to our economic problems, says so. You have an inability to form a coherent argument here. Which is not new.

The government spends WAY more than it generates in revenue. More revenue isn't going to stop that.

You sir/madam, are a fucking bar stool. An empty one at that.
 
Seriously, if you don't like liberty and our constitution, you might want to move to a country that better captures your flawed understanding of the best way to prosperity.Just don't whine when you realize it isn't what you thought it was. Subvert.
 
Marx is wrong, was wrong and will always be wrong.

If you really like Marx, there are plenty of Marxist societies that offer nothing.

I know that Marx was wrong -- that is why I was asking why you guys keep arguing with him.
 
Economic Issues 1 -- Growth in East Asia
^The success of the Asian Tigers can be attributed to a good primary education system and low income inequality.

http://www.ijeronline.com/documents/volumes/Vol 2 issue 5/ijer20110205SO(2).pdf
^Regressional statistical models and empirical evidence form several studies conclude that increases in income inequality lower GDP growth. Partly due to an inability for the larger poorer population from being able to invest

Study: Income Inequality Kills Economic Growth | Mother Jones
^Empirical study looking at Asia, and Latin America finds that upticks in income inequality resulted in less GPD growth. This can be partly explained by an increase in debt/speculative economic growth rather than income/demand growth.
^A 10% decrease in inequality results in a 50% longer growth spell

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
^IMF Chappeons of austerity conclude that more inequality leads to less sustained growth

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that are pure luxury instead of goods that increase wellbeing. For example a poor person who sees an influx in income will more likely spend that income on healthcare, healthier food, or other goods that have investment returns, while a rich person is more likely to get jewelry, or private jets.

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that have productive constraints.
For example a poor person who sees an influx in income is more likely to purchase basic goods like clothes, food, or appliances whose production can be increased easily via more labor harvesting, while a rich person is more likely to buy collectable items, beach front properties, or wines from a special region all goods whose production cannot be increases purely by increases labor or harvesting.
 
Anybody who thinks banks have too much power over governments is a fool. Banks have no power but some politicians are corrupt and generally the media supports corruption on the left. Why not track down the former chairman of the House Banking Committee who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and ask him why he told America that Fannie was solvent when it was in desperate trouble? Barney Frank retired just in time to enjoy his corrupt profits and is on his honeymoon somewhere with his new husband. Ask Obama's financial adviser Frank Raines why he cooked the books when he was CEO of Fannie Mae and walked away with 90 Million for three years work? Ask the corrupt politicians why they allowed Raines and the do-nothing political hacks to raid Fannie Mae's treasury. Banks and capitalism ain't the problem. Corrupt politicians and the left leaning media that supports the corruption is the problem.
 
Citi...the danger is the global totalitarians, perfectly represented by this administration.

The are hardly looking out for Americans...they wish for global governance.

Did you see this:


Speaking in Milwaukee on February 15, President Obama, re-ignited a controversy on "global taxation" set off by his top economic adviser during comments on the administration’s budget on Monday.

Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), caused a commotion this week with his statement that the Obama administration favors “a global minimum tax.” Sperling’s comment, captured by C-SPAN cameras, was soon spread across the blogosphere in numerous YouTube postings (watch below).
Obama Confirms Adviser Sperling

Umm this has been going on for decades under all administrations and all congresses.

Really??
How come you weren't fighting it??

I voted for Ross.

but whether or not I was fighting it does not deny it's existence.

Return question, why did you wait till now to fight it?
And even if you win your fight this election you will stil lose along with us all. the game will stay the same.
Do you actually believe campaign promise rhetoric?
Remember political speeches are specifically exempt from truth in adverstising laws.
There is a reason or a million reasons for that.
 
Last edited:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqMGjMoyXik]Max Keiser "Capitalism is dead" take back our country - YouTube[/ame]
 
Some folks put the cart before the horse.

They imagine that civilization is the economic system.

No kids, the point of the economy system is to serve the needs of the greater civilization.

When the economic system ceases that function it's time to modify the economy.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top