Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[LordBrownTrout]

Outcome is up to those who work the hardest, plain and simple.
Should we tell Seattle how many touchdowns the can score on Feb 2nd or maybe also tell Denver to not run up the score (cause that's what's going to happen) lolololo

No why would you want equality in one area and not in all---Because of race that's why--if you wish I will explain further.

We need scoring equality too. Everybody wins. Yea.

 

[Contumacious]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

The super rich can easily insulate their wealth from the welfare/warfare state.

The middle class can not.

.

 

[georgephillip]

When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.

Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty. Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.

How are you defining "free market"? Do you mean a market free of undue speculator influence like the one between FDR and Ronald Reagan? Do you believe Reagan was a collectivist? It was on his watch when income inequality began to widen, and the US middle class watched many of its good paying jobs shipped off to Mexico and China.

Giving a group priority over each individual in it tends to produce a stable economy where a rising tide actually lifts all boats, as opposed to the rugged individualism practiced by Wall Street speculators and abetted by their hired political hacks.

 

[georgephillip]

this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site

Do you find the following content untruthful?

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.

Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

 

[georgephillip]

Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.

That bullshit.

Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.

Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.

.

Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.

It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.

It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
Best congress money can buy.

 

[georgephillip]

" A 2011 study by the CBO[13] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[13]

"Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[14]

"In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[15]

"In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[16] Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison.[16]"

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Less than half of all American believe income inequality has increased during the last ten years.

What have they been reading?

 

[georgephillip]

Little georgie is the Bagdad Bob for Socialist/Communist

Inequality=the new meme for pushing Socialism/communism on you

people better wake up in this country

You are living proof.

"Yale professor and economist Robert J. Shiller, who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2013, believes that rising economic inequality in the United States and other countries is 'the most important problem that we are facing now today.'[22]

"Pope Francis echoed this sentiment in his Evangelii Gaudium, stating that 'as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.'"[23]

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity

Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works. Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.

You are confusing "opportunity" with "results." There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have. They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want." You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site. Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.

^^^Does that work for you?

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

 

[Contumacious]

Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.

WHO the **** paid Congress to regulate ESSO?

WHO paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board?

.

I'm not sure about Exxon; however, IMHO your second query isn't too hard to answer:
Nelson Aldrich
JP Morgan
John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Frank A. Vanderlip
Henry Davison
Charles D. Norton
Colonel Edward House
Paul Warburg

In short, the one percent of its day paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Fed.

The Federal Reserve Act was a BIPARTISAN (progressive) legislation adopted the same way obama hellcare was - in secret.

The gentlemen you identified above did not pay the legislators directly - INdirectly the Congress critters benefited because because the demagogues could then claim that thanks to them Americans would thereafter enjoy easy credit and cash.

When the market crashed in 1935 and gold was removed from our currency the motherfuckers were dead and gone.

.

.

 

[racewright]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

The super rich can easily insulate their wealth from the welfare/warfare state.

The middle class can not.

.

Very True--super Rich can take a 8 year vacation and wait till the politics are more to there liking....Sounds familiar to me like 2008 to 2016

 

[racewright]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

Yea so maybe if ya want to play football you should get along with the guy who owns the ball instead of pissing him off. If you take the ball away from him than who is going to replace it when it runs out of air--you I doubt it.

 

[georgephillip]

Thomas Sowell nails it....

Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.

All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.

For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.

But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.

Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is.

""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.

"'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.

"The bottom half of the population — about 3.5 billion people — account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?

 

[bripat9643]

Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.

It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.

It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
Best congress money can buy.

Is it the fault of the 1% that Congress is for sale? Rich people and corporations are not buying Congress. The reality is that Congress uses the threat of harmful regulations to shake down corporations and their executives for cash. It's an extortion racket.

 

[georgephillip]

Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?

Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

"It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy.

"Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power.

"One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime.

"The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

When you start quoting Noam Chomsky, you lose all credibility. Noam defended the Khmer Rouge slaughter of 3 million Cambodians.

Where's the evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist? You certainly didn't post any.

Noam never defended the mass murders of the Khmer Rouge.
If you believe he did so, post his words.
Socialism began as a movement meant to foster worker control of the means of production.
Lenin substituted the state in place of the worker:

"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.

"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'

"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.

"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.

"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.

"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx)."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity

Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works. Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.

You are confusing "opportunity" with "results." There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have. They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want." You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site. Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.

^^^Does that work for you?

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.

In the US, the top 10% paid over 70% of the income taxes collected in 2010.
A heck of a lot more than the 90% paid.

 

[georgephillip]

HOW exactly do you figure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?

Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.

In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.

The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything. Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.

A rising tide lifts all boats. That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.

Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.

Your corporate butt-sniffing doesn't even quality as a thesis, Greedy.

"Conclusion: The System Is Broken

The overall calculations reveal that, to the best approximation:

--The richest 400 individuals made an average of $750,000,000 each in 2013.
--The .01% (12,000 families) made about $40,000,000 each.
--The .1% (120,000 families) made about $3,600,000 each.
--The rest of the 1% (1,068,000 families) made over $830,000 each.
--The 2-5% (4,800,000 households) made about $300,000 each.
--The 6-10% (6,000,000 households) made about $95,000 each.
--The 11-20% (12,000,000 households) made about $39,000 each.
--The 21-40% (24,000,000 households) made about $13,000 each.
--The 41-60% (24,000,000 households) made about $4,000 each.
--The 61-80% (24,000,000 households) made about $333 each.
--The bottom 20% (24,000,000 households) made nothing.

Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity.

"But it hasn't worked that way for the past 35 years.

"Today only the people who already have money can increase their wealth.

"Congress doesn't seem to recognize, or doesn't care, that the system is horribly distorted in favor of a small group of people who need to do very little to take most of the wealth."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams

the figures you are quoting are for the entire world, a large percentage of which is not capitalist. Yet, you go on to refer to the capitalism in the United States. That makes anything based on that bullshit.

Where's that large percentage of the world that isn't capitalist?
How many of the Forbes 400 do business there?

"The Richest 400 Individuals Own More Than Three-Fifths of America

"The richest 400 now own over $2 trillion among them, or about 2.8% of the country's wealth of $72 trillion. This is more than the holdings of three-fifths of America, or 72 million families."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams

 

[bripat9643]

Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

"It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy.

"Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power.

"One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime.

"The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

When you start quoting Noam Chomsky, you lose all credibility. Noam defended the Khmer Rouge slaughter of 3 million Cambodians.

Where's the evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist? You certainly didn't post any.

Noam never defended the mass murders of the Khmer Rouge.
If you believe he did so, post his words.

Noam Chomsky's admirers should consider these statements | Times Opinion on Tumblr

"In 1977, Chomsky and his collaborator Edward Herman wrote an article for The Nation in which they pointedly referred to “alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities” in Cambodia, disputed that the rule of Pol Pot was analogous to Nazi Germany, and suggested that it was instead “more nearly correct” to compare Cambodia to “France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war [in Indochina]”.​

The man is a despicable piece of filth.

 

[kaz]

Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity

Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works. Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.

You are confusing "opportunity" with "results." There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have. They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want." You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site. Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."

Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.

^^^Does that work for you?

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

Just more communist manifesto rhetoric with no basis in logic or reality. That is how you enslave the population, not free them.

 

[g5000]

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

 

[P@triot]

Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.

But here's the problem junior - nobody gives a damn about your opinion because you openly admitted your opinion is the result of willful ignorance. You told everyone that you disregard facts because facts are "created by the wealthy"

Here's the bottom line - you hate wealthy people because they have more than you. And in that sick, twisted, Adolf-Hitler-punish-the-Jews manner, you just want to punish them for having more than you.

If you hated someone you didn't know simply because the color of their skin, you would be shunned by society as a racist. Yet you think it's perfectly ok to hate people you don't know simply because they worked harder than you did and became successful. You disgust me. You're full of hate and envy because you're a loser. Point the disdain where it belong junior - at the lazy asshat in the mirror.