Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?

That's what we are doing now. The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?

 

[dblack]

That's what we are doing now. The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?

You are - from what I've read so far.

 

[Bombur]

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?

You are - from what I've read so far.

What did I say that made you think that?

 

[RKMBrown]

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

>> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.

Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and want.

No. The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.

You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.

If they shut down capitalists? I can't believe that anyone could have missed the whole War on Profit and capitalist assets by the progressives & greentards.

Move to socialism? I can't believe anyone could have missed the War on Poverty via socialist hand-outs. 60million+ Americans are on welfare twice that many benefit by not having to pay for federal services, welfare and progressive taxation is socialism.

Capitalists are not against all public works projects. Your statements appear to be making the statement that you can only have one or the other.

 

[dblack]

>> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.

Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and want.

No. The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.

You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.

If they shut down capitalists? I can't believe that anyone could have missed the whole War on Profit and capitalist assets by the progressives & greentards.

Move to socialism? I can't believe anyone could have missed the War on Poverty via socialist hand-outs. 60million+ Americans are on welfare twice that many benefit by not having to pay for federal services, welfare and progressive taxation is socialism.

Capitalists are not against all public works projects. Your statements appear to be making the statement that you can only have one or the other.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. You seem to have radically missed the point I was trying to make, which, simply put, is just that capitalists do important work for the economy by investing to make a profit; work that would need to be done (by someone) regardless of the kind of economy we have.

 

[dblack]

Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?

You are - from what I've read so far.

What did I say that made you think that?

Well, to be fair, I haven't been following all of your posts, so I might just be flat-out wrong. But you seem to be arguing for active government intervention in the economy, which is the wellspring of crony capitalism.

 

[RKMBrown]

To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?

That's what we are doing now. The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

I think we have to stop looking at things in broad scopes, and discuss specifics. But while discussing broadly,... I'll give my broad view:

I believe the critics argument against capitalists is essentially the same as the critics arguments against government management. Both critics bemoan some rich guy (in DC or on Wall Street) being given the authority of a monopoly to control a large segment of an industry and use that monopoly to screw the consumer, owners, and/or workers.

IOW the issue is one of control. The left believe the right wants the corporations to be in control and the right believes the left wants marxist czars to be in control. To a certain degree both sides are correct in stating that absolute authority given in the form of monopoly control of markets is a bad thing that will be wielded in bad ways by bad people.

The solution is more liberty within the law, but neither the democrats or republicans want any of that liberty thing.

Govco's job is to break up monopolies not make themselves the monopoly or pick and choose their friends to be the monopoly owner of a sector.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.

If they shut down capitalists? I can't believe that anyone could have missed the whole War on Profit and capitalist assets by the progressives & greentards.

Move to socialism? I can't believe anyone could have missed the War on Poverty via socialist hand-outs. 60million+ Americans are on welfare twice that many benefit by not having to pay for federal services, welfare and progressive taxation is socialism.

Capitalists are not against all public works projects. Your statements appear to be making the statement that you can only have one or the other.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. You seem to have radically missed the point I was trying to make, which, simply put, is just that capitalists do important work for the economy by investing to make a profit; work that would need to be done (by someone) regardless of the kind of economy we have.

My point, and I'm not sure how you missed it. Is that capitalists do more than just invest to make profit.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what we are doing now. The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?

If you're suggesting government management of the economy, then you're suggesting crony capitalism. The two things go together like white on rice.

 

[Bombur]

You are - from what I've read so far.

What did I say that made you think that?

Well, to be fair, I haven't been following all of your posts, so I might just be flat-out wrong. But you seem to be arguing for active government intervention in the economy, which is the wellspring of crony capitalism.

Government should only step in to make the market more efficient or based on some other objective like public safety or health. The government can also pursue long term goals that the private sector wouldn't.

The government is inherently impacting the economy when they have taxes or have a trade policy. In the modern global economy the lack of UHC also has a relative impact on the US labor market. So do our regulations.

Something like the Federal Reserve is intervention which I am for.

I don't see how any of that has anything to do with crony capitalism which is IMO just another version of supply side economics.

 

[Bombur]

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?

If you're suggesting government management of the economy, then you're suggesting crony capitalism. The two things go together like white on rice.

I addressed this point in my last post.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Income equality is impossible.

The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.

HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?

It is my business because it impact the entire country and is in part a product of government policy or the lack thereof. It is my business because it impacts the people of my nation and threatens the long term prosperity of my country.

There are a lot of things that can be done that will help the US labor force regain their market leverage. We could address trade imbalances, tax policy, UHC, regulations as they relate to trade, and many other smaller issues.

There are MANY things in life that can be (fairly) said to have some degree of "impact" on the entire country even some things tht arise partly because of government policy.

That doesn't give you or the government any valid claim, necessarily, to meddle where you have not been granted permission to meddle.

Starting from the premise (as I do) that ours is a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic, before I would deign to grant you or the government permission to meddle in the "degree" of income inequality, I would demand that OU and the government demonstrate that your meddling is authorized by the Constitution itself.

If you like it or if you hate it, we live in a CAPITALIST society. So let's ask, among other necessary questions, what role does the US Federal Government have (if any) in validly regulating Capitalist entities? What is the grant of authority for assuming such alleged authority?

We clearly do have a government that attempts to insinuate itself into the markets and labor decisions and so forth. That we have tolerated or permitted this up to now is not a terribly strong argument for the proposition that such interference is proper or legitimate.

I believe that there IS a proper role for government in addressing some problems associated with Capitalism. But I also believe we have done a poor job of defining what that role properly is and what the basis for it is and what the parameters are for such an impressive power. It is, in my estimation, way past the time to get that discussion going in a very robust manner.

For, if we fail to have that discussion, then we might end up tacitly approving (or worse yet, continuing to tacitly approve) an over-reaching government having undue power and we could end up permitting the encroachment of socialism where we never actually ok'd it.

 

[gnarlylove]

HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?

You're asking the wrong question. To narrow income inequality to one person is to ignore the billions of folks around the globe who are exploited. They live in abject conditions you wouldn't let your dog live in because you have empathy for your dog but not your fellow man.

Why? Because you want everyone to be loyal to you like your dog is. If they aren't you dismiss them as having no right to life. This is a stupid social theory but you've never studied anything in depth as FOX provides all the specious idiocy you can digest leaving no room for unbiased facts.

 

[gnarlylove]

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.

You're obviously under the impression that the elite know how to run society and giving it up to the people is unthinkable.

It's unthinkable because we've never tried it. Do I think we could handle immediate power shifts of this magnitude? No. It would need to be gradual as in shock to a system is often damaging in the short term. But for if you're argument is "We don't know" that is pretty poor reasoning to think capitalists/elite are operating a society like it should. They are operating a society that mostly benefits them, this is an undeniable fact. What does that leave for the rest? Well, we have to put up with the eternal struggle and wage slavery...but we got a nice new car so I eases our pain. The material comforts are ******* worthless since 1 in 5 citizens are in need of serious mental health counseling. This is a joke society, not one intended to help humanity flourish like a good society should. It tramples underfoot the majority so the tiny minority can live in unprecedented and unthinkable abundance.

 

[Bombur]

HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?

It is my business because it impact the entire country and is in part a product of government policy or the lack thereof. It is my business because it impacts the people of my nation and threatens the long term prosperity of my country.

There are a lot of things that can be done that will help the US labor force regain their market leverage. We could address trade imbalances, tax policy, UHC, regulations as they relate to trade, and many other smaller issues.

There are MANY things in life that can be (fairly) said to have some degree of "impact" on the entire country even some things tht arise partly because of government policy.

That doesn't give you or the government any valid claim, necessarily, to meddle where you have not been granted permission to meddle.

Starting from the premise (as I do) that ours is a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic, before I would deign to grant you or the government permission to meddle in the "degree" of income inequality, I would demand that OU and the government demonstrate that your meddling is authorized by the Constitution itself.

If you like it or if you hate it, we live in a CAPITALIST society. So let's ask, among other necessary questions, what role does the US Federal Government have (if any) in validly regulating Capitalist entities? What is the grant of authority for assuming such alleged authority?

We clearly do have a government that attempts to insinuate itself into the markets and labor decisions and so forth. That we have tolerated or permitted this up to now is not a terribly strong argument for the proposition that such interference is proper or legitimate.

I believe that there IS a proper role for government in addressing some problems associated with Capitalism. But I also believe we have done a poor job of defining what that role properly is and what the basis for it is and what the parameters are for such an impressive power. It is, in my estimation, way past the time to get that discussion going in a very robust manner.

For, if we fail to have that discussion, then we might end up tacitly approving (or worse yet, continuing to tacitly approve) an over-reaching government having undue power and we could end up permitting the encroachment of socialism where we never actually ok'd it.

Trade policy, tax policy, and healthcare policy are all within the government's authority. All impact income inequality through action and inaction.

 

[gnarlylove]

Government should only step in to make the market more efficient or based on some other objective like public safety or health. The government can also pursue long term goals that the private sector wouldn't.

Yep, without government we don't have collective pursuits unless it benefits the capitalist class, which usually just centers around generating profits instead of well being.

"Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you can’t buy a subway because that’s not offered. Market systems don’t offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, you’re going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, it’s simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, it’s less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and they’re all part of general class war."

Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet

 

[IlarMeilyr]

HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?

You're asking the wrong question. To narrow income inequality to one person is to ignore the billions of folks around the globe who are exploited. They live in abject conditions you wouldn't let your dog live in because you have empathy for your dog but not your fellow man.

Why? Because you want everyone to be loyal to you like your dog is. If they aren't you dismiss them as having no right to life. This is a stupid social theory but you've never studied anything in depth as FOX provides all the specious idiocy you can digest leaving no room for unbiased facts.

No, gnarlylump.

YOU are guilty of deriving the wrong conclusion from the available evidence. Your logic is piss poor and you are emotionally immature and lacking in any kind of sophistication.

IF you had the ability to be honest and objective, you dickweed, even a lump as dull as you might be able to see that capitalism has worked wonders for human beings.

The solution to the fact that some folks in the world live in abject poverty would be obvious if you were not so blinded by your own plodding dim intellect. It is not to get rid of capitalism. It is to SPREAD it far and wide.

Capitalism has elevated the BASE where ever it has been permitted to flower.

Our poorest (in capitalist America) live in a condition which would be deemed almost unimaginable royal wealth, from not that far back in human history.

Do our poorest live in relatively rough conditions compared to the so-called middle "class" or the wealthy? Sure. And is that as things should be? No. but do things HAVE to remain that way? Nope. Capitalism itself has historically provided the way out.

Of course it takes work and industry and effort and skill and time and talent. But it does get rewarded.

What is NOT called for is the abandonment of the very engine that has improved the lot of even our poorest for so long.

Some fine tuning might be in order. SOME government interference might even be necessary since men are not angels. But the solution to the problems we have is not to jettison the very thing that has made us what we are. It is to work on perfecting it.

By contrast, you offer (or propose) nothing but -- what? Another example of historical failure?

You don't even "study" anything. I don't watch FOX. Your cartoonish stereotype thinking has no power over me. You could LEARN from FOX if you had even the tiniest bit of an open mind. But you don't. You buy wholesale the crap "taught' to you by the jokes you revere: lolberal "academics." And twits like you merely parrot what you've been told (almost ordered) to "think."

Sadly, thinking is not something you do.

 

[KNB]

You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?

 

[History]

You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?

Why not cut taxes for all?? You think that raising taxes for Middle Class people helps the economy as well just because you want to fund the lazy?? Think again..

What government has created basically, Increased Debt, Increased Inflation, Increased Taxation, More Dependency, and the Middle Class has been buried as a result.. The poor are living pretty good with all this redistribution of wealth and the rich aren't hurt.. Both Parties have caused all of this in the end..

 

[gnarlylove]

Our poorest (in capitalist America) live in a condition which would be deemed almost unimaginable royal wealth, from not that far back in human history.

I have lived homeless for months at a time.

Shut the **** up if you haven't. You ******* think homeless and those in abject poverty live in some grand country?

When was the last time you turned off FOX propaganda and went down to your city mission?

Never? That's what I thought. Before you listen to people on TV in suits talk about what it's like to be homeless in America why don't you use your head for a second.

People on TV in suits are not Homeless. They are not Poor. They do not know the conditions of what it's like to be poor. I'm sure you'll keep repeating this categorical ignorance because you have heard it a hundred times on FOX but if you had ANY concern for facts, you wouldn't listen to idiots in suits who dress up as homeless people and beg for change, you'd listen to the actually homeless people WHICH ARE NEVER ON TV. Since they aren't on TV you wouldn't make the effort to understand it so you settle for sags and bags of suits telling you how life is for the homeless. Now that's lunacy.