Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
At least you're not suffering from your insanity.The world is unfair.
No it isn't. The world is a chunk of rock orbiting a garden variety yellow star. It is not fair or unfair. It just is. The economy on the other hand is a man made thing. If the economy is unfair, that has nothing to do with market Gods, physics or any other natural laws. It has to do with people deciding to be unfair.
But of course, I made no argument regarding fairness. I made a simple statement of truth on what a mal distribution of wealth does. It makes capitalism eat itelf. Nobody made any substantive retort.
As human beings with free will we can decide either to let capitalism eat itself or we can decide to save capitalism by redistributing wealth. Those are the choices. But, you don't want to deal with reality. You want to live in a fantasy world where economies aren't the collective decisions of humans but rather they are run by Gods or some amorphous natural law. You want to assert that there is some inevitability in most of the population living in squalor while the miniscule minority lives in conspicuous opulence. And, shockingly, you want this "let them eat cake" ideology to be called fairness.
That's why we call you wingnuts.
Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
When will the right ever face that allowing too much concentration of wealth in too few hands KILLS an economy.
You can not have capitalism when all the capital is in one hand.
You then have economic slavery.
If one monkey has 100 bananas, it matters not to him if his neighbor has 10,000 bananas, if his 100 is more than he or anyone else will ever need and none are in want.
However, if one barely has enough to get buy- let alone if one is starving- while another sits atop bananas he can never eat and giving a monkey in a black gown a few extra bananas to see to it that one is not allowed to get in the way of the rich monkey's banana harvest,,,
You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
And again... someone's else's nest egg amount is your business why??
Do you not have the freedom to earn all the money you can and accumulate all the wealth you can??
You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... if you get 100X what you are worth, good for you.. if you get half of what you are worth, too bad too sad... either way it is up to you
Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
And again... someone's else's nest egg amount is your business why??
Do you not have the freedom to earn all the money you can and accumulate all the wealth you can??
You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... if you get 100X what you are worth, good for you.. if you get half of what you are worth, too bad too sad... either way it is up to you
Concentrated unfettered Capitalism leads to revolution because concentrated unfettered Capitalism by its nature is exploitative.When will the right ever face that allowing too much concentration of wealth in too few hands KILLS an economy.
You can not have capitalism when all the capital is in one hand.
You then have economic slavery.
Actually, you nattering nabob of nonsense, Concentrated and Unfettered Government Power in Any Hands KILLS an economy.
"Earning". The concept under argument here.You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.And again... someone's else's nest egg amount is your business why??
Do you not have the freedom to earn all the money you can and accumulate all the wealth you can??
You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... if you get 100X what you are worth, good for you.. if you get half of what you are worth, too bad too sad... either way it is up to you
When did saving what one has earned turned into exploiting other people?
What a sad, pea green with envy outlook.
I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
Forcing me to work for somebody else is what the distribution of wealth is.
Distribution of wealth is Marxism.
Wealth is nothing more than ones labor, wealth is my labor in a tangible form I can trade for another person's labor.
That is why its bad, distribution of wealth is stealing, forced slavery, servitude, socialist/marxism.
Wealth is the physical representation of my labor, my work, my success, or my dumb luck.
Again, its the unequal distribution of intelligence that is the problem.
Wealth is much more than ones labor.
The 1% did not do the labor that created their wealth.
Most of them inherited it.
Ever live in a company town? A town where one employer dominates the economy? A steel mill, a coal mine, a factory upon which the entire town depends? And when that company leaves, what happens to the rest of the town? what happens to the community services because the tax base has dried up? What happens to the real estate values of those living there?Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
If they are being "exploited" because the CEO makes more then they do then THEY are free to leave and get a different job.
"Earning". The concept under argument here.You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.
When did saving what one has earned turned into exploiting other people?
What a sad, pea green with envy outlook.
In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.
But there is no denying that we currently have an unequal distribution of available wealth that is only getting worse. What we are looking at is examining those policies and benefits available to the wealthy that contribute to them accumulating more wealth while not benefitting society as a whole.
We also need to look at policies and benefits available to working class Americans that impede their ability to acquire wealth. These include affordable healthcare, education and housing
When will the right ever face that allowing too much concentration of wealth in too few hands KILLS an economy.
You can not have capitalism when all the capital is in one hand.
You then have economic slavery.
Actually, you nattering nabob of nonsense, Concentrated and Unfettered Government Power in Any Hands KILLS an economy.
Ever live in a company town? A town where one employer dominates the economy? A steel mill, a coal mine, a factory upon which the entire town depends? And when that company leaves, what happens to the rest of the town? what happens to the community services because the tax base has dried up? What happens to the real estate values of those living there?Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.
When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?
If they are being "exploited" because the CEO makes more then they do then THEY are free to leave and get a different job.
Sometimes opportunity is where you live and the hope of moving on is outside your grasp.
In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.
But there is no denying that we currently have an unequal distribution of available wealth that is only getting worse. What we are looking at is examining those policies and benefits available to the wealthy that contribute to them accumulating more wealth while not benefitting society as a whole.
We also need to look at policies and benefits available to working class Americans that impede their ability to acquire wealth. These include affordable healthcare, education and housing
The only thing that impedes your ability to acquire wealth is you... You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... the same freedom every other citizen has... and it is ONLY that freedom that the government should ensure... It is not on government to give you a leg up at the expense of others for healthcare or education as an adult or a better house... nor should it be
