Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[jasonnfree]

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.

When has America ever been a truly free market capitalist nation? Got some dates?

 

[jasonnfree]

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

You say:
"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."
This is because they work harder and smarter than the rest of us. Ask any republican. And if these wealthy people end up owning 99.9% of everything eventually? Then they still deserve it because they work harder and smarter now stop being so jealous.

 

[racewright]

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

You say:
"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."
This is because they work harder and smarter than the rest of us. Ask any republican. And if these wealthy people end up owning 99.9% of everything eventually? Then they still deserve it because they work harder and smarter now stop being so jealous.

That's right and follow human nature its not your money so go earn it by having your government get out of the way. Andyou too might get rich

 

[Whig_Out]

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.

Always calling people junior? Internet badass folks. Watch out. Pathetic human for sure. On a forum all day. Good job!

 

[gipper]

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?

AGAIN...this is NOT the fault of Capitalism. The fault lies with a corrupt power elite that controls governments and economies throughout the world.

You, like many on the Left, fail to see that the very thing you want more of, is the thing causing poverty, income inequality, wars, and so much more that is detrimental to the human condition.

 

[gipper]

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.

When has America ever been a truly free market capitalist nation? Got some dates?

We were very close to a truly free market capitalist nation for about the first one hundred years. But, as the central government grew and was allowed to pick winners and losers, this all changed. It really changed in a big way with the asshole Wilson, who imposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax resulting in the omnipresent huge tyrannical central government we suffer under today.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

I don't really care about other countries.

Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.

Right...**** income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!

Our poor don't get HD cable.

This must stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Congress extorted the repeal of Glass-Steagall from Wall Street, is that right?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%, and so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

Human nature.

Those that don't have it, either didn't have the ambition to go get it, as is the case in the US, as nothing except themselves is preventing them from doing so, OR elsewhere in the world, they live in a culture governed by relativism, which places the subjective in positions of power, that precludes them from exercising their natural right to do so, inevitably misinforming those individuals through fraudulent notions, that they're entitled to subsistent or in the worst case, they can't do for themselves and will only take what is given to them.

Now the simple truth is that just about any nature conservancy will tell you how destructive entitlement subsidies are. Particularly for creatures that can't reason soundly.

It's not truly not even a debatable point.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

So says the lazy turd who probably didn't bother to read Herman's and Noam's 1976 article "Distortions at Fourth Hand" which appeared in The Nation magazine:

"If, indeed, postwar Cambodia is, as he believes, similar to Nazi Germany, then his comment is perhaps just, though we may add that he has produced no evidence to support this judgement. But if postwar Cambodia is more similar 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, then perhaps a rather different judgement is in order. That the latter conclusion may be more nearly correct is suggested by the analyses mentioned earlier..."

Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia extended from 1975-'79.
Chomsky and Herman published their article in 1976.
No one at that time knew for sure how many Cambodians died at the hands of Pol Pot.
Just as today nobody remember how the US military helped bring Pol Pot to power.

"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."

 

[georgephillip]

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.

You enslave the population through debt and war.
Two Evils capitalism can't exist without.

 

[kaz]

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.

What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%.

You're full of it. No possible way you could back that nonsense up.

so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What a flagrant red herring. I oppose the wars, but what an irrelevant point to the discussion.

 

[kaz]

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.

You enslave the population through debt and war.
Two Evils capitalism can't exist without.

blah blah, Marx rocks, freedom sucks...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't really care about other countries.

Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.

Right...**** income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!

Our poor don't get HD cable.

This must stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Obamaphone monthly plans are just another way "The Man" is keepin' the brother down!

 

[Bombur]

Income inequality is growing in large part because the poor people in China and other nations are much better off than they used to be. The combination of globalization and technology growth put a fair amount of downward pressure on wages. Even if education levels are improving from one generation to the next.

The problem with income inequality is in part that global economics relies on demand for production to increase right along with these increases in production capacity. Those who are greedy and self centered don't realize how important it is for wages to increase because they consider rising wages to be a bad thing for them. As long as these type of people are making decisions the entire world is in trouble.

Also if you are stuck in the communism versus capitalism paradigm you are stuck in the past.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%, and so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?

You're right, the Bush tax cuts made the code too progressive.

The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%

Prove it.

 

[Bombur]

You can tell someone really doesn't have anything to add to a conversation when they focus on who pays Federal income taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can tell someone really doesn't have anything to add to a conversation when they focus on who pays Federal income taxes.

You mean when they claim something opposite of the truth. But enough about George.

 

[editec]

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.

That might have been a reasonable complaint.

Or at least it might have been if the RICH hadn't ALWAYS dominated who takes office in the USA.