Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

I'm still waiting for you to get one thing right?

of course the above would be more true as relates to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals. THe American economy is designed to be a place where free men can eaern a living without government interference.

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."-Thomas Jefferson
-

 

[ilia25]

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

I'm still waiting for you to get one thing right?

of course the above would be more true as relates to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals. THe American economy is designed to be a place where free men can eaern a living without government interference.

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."-Thomas Jefferson
-

I understand that this is awfully hard for a conservative, but could you at least entertain a possibility that we are not living in 18 century anymore?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The increased spending helped us to stay out from hell..

actually there was increased governemnt spending so then less private spending for no net increase in spending. This is a trick liberals use because they know you dont understand economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I understand that this is awfully hard for a conservative, but could you at least entertain a possibility that we are not living in 18 century anymore?

in the 18th Century our Founders gave us freedom from liberal government without seeing the great 20th Century liberals: Hitler Stalin Mao. You have seen them and still you lack their 18th Century wisdom.

Would it make sense to make liberalism illegal as our founders attempted to do with the Constitution.

 

[ilia25]

The increased spending helped us to stay out from hell..

actually there was increased governemnt spending so then less private spending for no net increase in spending. This is a trick liberals use because they know you dont understand economics.

That is a total bullshit -- a notion that increasing government spending by $1 always reduces private sector spending by $1. That may be true in boom times, but not in a recession, when private sector cuts on spending in order to reduce its debt. There are tons of idle capital in the economy. That is why it the government can stimulate the recovery by borrowing those idle money and spending it.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Max Keiser "Capitalism is dead" take back our country - YouTube

"The US dollar is the roach motel of world currencies"

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Few, if any, capitalists wake up in the morning with the thought, "I want to increase my payroll today because its good for the US economy." That proves what Marx laid out in Capital that there's no direct connection between productivity and creating jobs. Capitalism has outlived any usefulness it ever possessed to all except the richest 1% of humanity.

http://www.truth-out.org/capitalism-infernal-machine-interview-fredric-jameson/1329403604

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Lulz.

Everyone is a capitalist that seeks to improve their material existence through personal free exchange in the market. Everyone.

Marx theories have been tested, his theories torn down in so many ways since they were first put to the test, it's absolutely laughable that people still want to tout them as if they are coherent economic thoughts.

Marx own personal life is a testiment to that. He was a lazy, disheveled, over educated son of a bourgeoisie father that spent his life in constant distraction of the pursuit of maintaining his own existence, by writing and reading several subjects at a time. He hardly ever finished a piece on his own and relied on Engels to do it for him. He survived throughout the years mainly by taking money from Engels and his father/mother.

He was, in all purpose4 and practice, a waste. His ideas put in use killed millions. He was nothing more than a selfish and self righteous turd.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The increased spending helped us to stay out from hell..

actually there was increased governemnt spending so then less private spending for no net increase in spending. This is a trick liberals use because they know you dont understand economics.

That is a total bullshit -- a notion that increasing government spending by $1 always reduces private sector spending by $1. That may be true in boom times, but not in a recession, when private sector cuts on spending in order to reduce its debt. There are tons of idle capital in the economy. That is why it the government can stimulate the recovery by borrowing those idle money and spending it.

Well, look at where the bullshit really comes in. Govt. does not "borrow" that money, unless you are referring to deficit spending where it borrows from red china and other despot countries.

The govt. steals it money from the private sector to determine where THEY believe, it should be redistributed. Which they have been doing over the last depression, by choosing winners and losers, bailing out banks and overall fucking it up worse than if they sat by idol.

Govt. isn't a business. They are there to uphold our constitution and laws, keep money "sound" and protect our rights. NOT choose who gets to the upper hand in a market by privatizing profit and socializing the loss.

 

[itfitzme]

Oh good, another thread where people don't know the difference between economic and political systems.

Capitalism and corporatism is not mutually exclusive.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, by definition, they are. Shall I post the definitions of what they mean?

Or were you just having a "moment" to re-secure fantasyland?

 

[itfitzme]

Around 70% of the US economy is driven by consumer spending, yet the base of the consumer class doesn't have the expendable income to "keep the economy going".

Absolutely. And enough has been driven by credit that a recession occurs without it.

The economy has been dependent on the constant accumulation of debt in order to facilitate consumption and "full employment". The middle class has funded consumption through credit. When revolving and non-revolving consumer credit began to decline in November of 2007, the recession began the next month, in December of 2007. And it did not end until the rate at which consumer credit was declining leveled off.

The Great Depression depression has been traced back to decline in consumer credit. The recession of 2000 was magnified as non-revolving consumer credit declined.

Our free market economy and the forces of supply and demand float on an ever rising level of debt that eventually drain when a large portion of consumers can no longer sustain it and "decide" to pull the plug.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, by definition, they are. Shall I post the definitions of what they mean?

Or were you just having a "moment" to re-secure fantasyland?

Why haven't you?

In your own words without looking them up, present the technical and colloquial definitions capitalism and corporatism. Define the fundamental feature of capitalism and how it relates to corporatism. Compare and contrast these to socialism. Describe a real situation that an individual in each system would experience, that would make it significant to them as an individual. Also, present three countries, past or present, along with their political and economic systems, in which the combination of the two is unique.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

An assignment?

No, why don't you do all that in reverse and prove your points. I'm not here to run that circle. Make no mistake, I can do what you ask, but I'm not taking assignments. Prove the opposite.

 

[georgephillip]

Lulz.

Everyone is a capitalist that seeks to improve their material existence through personal free exchange in the market. Everyone.

Marx theories have been tested, his theories torn down in so many ways since they were first put to the test, it's absolutely laughable that people still want to tout them as if they are coherent economic thoughts.

Marx own personal life is a testiment to that. He was a lazy, disheveled, over educated son of a bourgeoisie father that spent his life in constant distraction of the pursuit of maintaining his own existence, by writing and reading several subjects at a time. He hardly ever finished a piece on his own and relied on Engels to do it for him. He survived throughout the years mainly by taking money from Engels and his father/mother.

He was, in all purpose4 and practice, a waste. His ideas put in use killed millions. He was nothing more than a selfish and self righteous turd.

Point out the direct connection between productivity and job creation that capitalism provides.
Any thoughts on why there is only one ("communist") state in all recorded history to lose more jobs in a single decade than the US between 2000-2010?
Marx would probably conclude the contradictions facing capitalism in its predatory "monopoly-finance" phase produces an accumulation system that increasingly rewards speculation over production,
for the benefit of all the vapid turds who extract rather than produce wealth.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We don't have capitalism. So, you're pulling at tampon strings here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Point out the direct connection between productivity and job creation that capitalism provides.

its very very simple really. The more productive workers are the more they must be paid [thanks to competition], the more they can buy, and the more jobs created to supply them.

 

[georgephillip]

Point out the direct connection between productivity and job creation that capitalism provides.

its very very simple really. The more productive workers are the more they must be paid [thanks to competition], the more they can buy, and the more jobs created to supply them.

Why have middle-class wages in the US stagnated since the 1970s while US productivity has doubled?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Point out the direct connection between productivity and job creation that capitalism provides.

I'm sure that somewhere in the haze of your mind, there is a concept attached to the above. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what it may be?

Any thoughts on why there is only one ("communist") state in all recorded history to lose more jobs in a single decade than the US between 2000-2010?

Any thoughts on why there is no instance that galley slaves in the Roman empire lost more jobs than the year 2011 under Barry Obama?

Any thoughts on why more Jobs were created in the USA between 2001 and 2007 than in the entire History of Communist Cuba? Any thoughts on why more jobs were created in 2005 than in the entire presidential term of Barack Obama?

Marx would probably conclude the contradictions facing capitalism in its predatory "monopoly-finance" phase produces an accumulation system that increasingly rewards speculation over production,
for the benefit of all the vapid turds who extract rather than produce wealth.

Marx would be living in his mom's basement, surfing porn sites.

Kinda like you....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why have middle-class wages in the US stagnated since the 1970s while US productivity has doubled?

They haven't.

If you have a point, why do you need to use falsehoods?