Wealth inequality

Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from making investments with depositors' money, mainly because the safety of those deposits is protected by the FDIC and if an investment goes bad and the investor bank cannot absorb the loss it ultimately is incurred by the (FDIC) taxpayers.

Then it wouldn't have prevented the real estate bubble or crash.

The FDIC is funded by the banks.
(Excerpt)

In the current financial crisis, with Citibank alone carrying over a trillion dollars in liabilities, it seems pretty clear that a single failed mega-bank would force the FDIC to call on its credit with the U.S. Treasury. Considering that the FDIC had only about 19 billion in funds by the end of 2008, and is expected to collect only about 12-13 billion in FDIC premiums this year, it seems far from certain that the FDIC would ever be able to pay back $500 billion in federal loans.

NPR Check: FDIC is funded by banks

(Close)


But there are many more, beginning with the ones Ronald Reagan repealed that led directly to the Savings & Loan scandal.

And there are plenty more such specifics available via Google.

Any specifics? Or just feelings?
Go here: www.openthegovernment.org/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
 
Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from making investments with depositors' money, mainly because the safety of those deposits is protected by the FDIC and if an investment goes bad and the investor bank cannot absorb the loss it ultimately is incurred by the (FDIC) taxpayers.

Then it wouldn't have prevented the real estate bubble or crash.

The FDIC is funded by the banks.
(Excerpt)

In the current financial crisis, with Citibank alone carrying over a trillion dollars in liabilities, it seems pretty clear that a single failed mega-bank would force the FDIC to call on its credit with the U.S. Treasury. Considering that the FDIC had only about 19 billion in funds by the end of 2008, and is expected to collect only about 12-13 billion in FDIC premiums this year, it seems far from certain that the FDIC would ever be able to pay back $500 billion in federal loans.

NPR Check: FDIC is funded by banks

(Close)


But there are many more, beginning with the ones Ronald Reagan repealed that led directly to the Savings & Loan scandal.

And there are plenty more such specifics available via Google.

Any specifics? Or just feelings?
Go here: www.openthegovernment.org/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

it seems pretty clear that a single failed mega-bank would force the FDIC to call on its credit with the U.S. Treasury.

Yeah, so until that happens, it's clear that the FDIC is still funded by the banks.
 
Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from making investments with depositors' money, mainly because the safety of those deposits is protected by the FDIC and if an investment goes bad and the investor bank cannot absorb the loss it ultimately is incurred by the (FDIC) taxpayers.

Then it wouldn't have prevented the real estate bubble or crash.

The FDIC is funded by the banks.
(Excerpt)

In the current financial crisis, with Citibank alone carrying over a trillion dollars in liabilities, it seems pretty clear that a single failed mega-bank would force the FDIC to call on its credit with the U.S. Treasury. Considering that the FDIC had only about 19 billion in funds by the end of 2008, and is expected to collect only about 12-13 billion in FDIC premiums this year, it seems far from certain that the FDIC would ever be able to pay back $500 billion in federal loans.

NPR Check: FDIC is funded by banks

(Close)


But there are many more, beginning with the ones Ronald Reagan repealed that led directly to the Savings & Loan scandal.

And there are plenty more such specifics available via Google.

Any specifics? Or just feelings?
Go here: www.openthegovernment.org/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

The only regulation necessary, however, to keep capitalism from going to any dangerous extreme, is a government that protects the unalienable rights of the people meaning that they will not be allowed to wreck physical, economic, environmental or philosophical violence upon each other. For instance, anti trust laws are necessary to keep two businesses from ganging up on a third, etc. and RICO laws are necessary to prevent unethical business from defrauding and cheating the public. Regulated monopolies at very local levels are practical for delivery of critical essential services such as utilities, but should never otherwise be legal in a free market system.

And then the government should provide the necessary oversight but otherwise keep hands off private enterprise at all levels.

Whenever the government seeks to pick winners and losers or uses the people's money to advantage a favored enterprise for any reason, the free market system is damaged and thrown out of kilter. Do it enough and the system becomes increasingly unnatural and unworkable. To effectively maintain any economic system other than capitalism, the government has to regulate essentially every aspect of the market, with a direct decrease in productivity and opportunity.
 
Last edited:
You do understand that socialism is a political system and an economic paradigm where capitalism is an economic ideal and not a political system, don't you?
 
"Captialism does not have goals" --- :lmao:

Nor do your posts apparently.

The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

Again, what exactly did capitalism fail at?
 
You do understand that socialism is a political system and an economic paradigm where capitalism is an economic ideal and not a political system, don't you?

This is quite right. American Capitalism is the based on the principle of freedom unhindered by any authoritarian power other than what is necessary to protect the unalienable rights of all. Socialism is based on the principle of shared resources enforced and controlled by authoritarian power.
 
"Captialism does not have goals" --- :lmao:

Nor do your posts apparently.

The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

No, capitalism never fails anywhere it is tried by people who understand its principles. Unregulated capitalism can indeed be used by the unethical to do violence to others, but that is why we need government to regulate commerce and industry in a way that everybody's unalienable rights are secured.

But there is no right to what that CEO earns. There is no right to what the sports hero gets paid or what the music idol or movie star receives to perform or the jackpot won by the lottery winner. If we truly believe in freedom, we have to earn what we have to the best of our ability. If the government can take a single dime from you and give it to me just because you have it and I don't, there is no freedom.
 
The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

No, capitalism never fails anywhere it is tried by people who understand its principles. Unregulated capitalism can indeed be used by the unethical to do violence to others, but that is why we need government to regulate commerce and industry in a way that everybody's unalienable rights are secured.

But there is no right to what that CEO earns. There is no right to what the sports hero gets paid or what the music idol or movie star receives to perform or the jackpot won by the lottery winner. If we truly believe in freedom, we have to earn what we have to the best of our ability.
Those earnings may be contractually guaranteed in which case the sports hero, movie star etc do have a right to those earnings. This is why there are cases in court sounding in breach of contract.


If the government can take a single dime from you and give it to me just because you have it and I don't, there is no freedom.
The constitution very clearly states:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


To give your taxes to another if it is based upon a legislated program is perfectly fine. I do not like it, but I choose to live in the US so I abide by the laws here.
 
The constitution does not allow the federal government to give public monies to individuals.
Congress does not have the constitutional power to give public monies to individuals either.

That they do so just means that they have overstepped their constitutional powers - not that it is lawful.
 
The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

Again, what exactly did capitalism fail at?

Providing a healthy economy.
 
The system didn't fail - people failed to use it.
People only get paid what their employers feel is appropriate with the exception of congress who decide their own pay schedule.
 
Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

Again, what exactly did capitalism fail at?

Providing a healthy economy.

And if you look up the definition of capitalism, or even a short synopsis of it, where do you see 'provide a healthy economy'?

The fact is capitalism can exist in a healthy economy as easily as existing in a bad economy. The reason being the outcome of the economy is dependent on the actions of the people in it, not the system itself.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

No, capitalism never fails anywhere it is tried by people who understand its principles. Unregulated capitalism can indeed be used by the unethical to do violence to others, but that is why we need government to regulate commerce and industry in a way that everybody's unalienable rights are secured.

But there is no right to what that CEO earns. There is no right to what the sports hero gets paid or what the music idol or movie star receives to perform or the jackpot won by the lottery winner. If we truly believe in freedom, we have to earn what we have to the best of our ability.
Those earnings may be contractually guaranteed in which case the sports hero, movie star etc do have a right to those earnings. This is why there are cases in court sounding in breach of contract.


If the government can take a single dime from you and give it to me just because you have it and I don't, there is no freedom.
The constitution very clearly states:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


To give your taxes to another if it is based upon a legislated program is perfectly fine. I do not like it, but I choose to live in the US so I abide by the laws here.

Our Founders did not see it that way. The Founders saw true freedom as the ability to use one's own property and fruits of one's own labor as one chose to do in the pursuit of happiness, so long as nobody else's rights are infringed.

Because the government was given the mandate to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning the general not specific welfare of all), and secure the blessings of liberty (i.e. protect our unalienable rights), the Founders knew there would be a cost associated with that. Therefore the government was given license to asses fees and taxes that would be consistently and uniformly applied without exception necessary to fund its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Those responsibilities did not include any form of welfare or charity or providing any programs or services not specifically designated in the Constitution.

Every President and Administration understood and practiced that interpretation of the Constitution until Teddy Roosevelt who turned it on its head by declaring the government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly forbid.

And it is THAT interpretation that has been greedily embraced by politicians who are motivated to take the very power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth at the taxpayer's expense--all that the Founders intended the federal government to never have.

It is THAT which has saddled us with unsustainable entitlements, programs that go on and on despite never producing the promised results, and that has short circuited the free market capitalism that made this the greatest and most free nation the world had ever known, and that transfers more and more control of the nation's wealth to the government with every passing year.
 
Further to Connery or anybody else who feels entitled to what somebody else has earned. . . .

Understand that when the government limits what any individual can achieve. . . .

when the government can take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B. . . .

when the government has power to penalize success and reward failure. . . .

the people have no freedom at all.
 
Further to Connery or anybody else who feels entitled to what somebody else has earned. . . .

Understand that when the government limits what any individual can achieve. . . .

when the government can take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B. . . .

when the government has power to penalize success and reward failure. . . .

the people have no freedom at all.


The people no longer have any reason to produce either. Why be productive if you just have to give it to someone who won't?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top