Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

Androw, how do we vote for a non-socialist? It's evident that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the rescue of the banks. Do you recommend third party? What if that third party would have done the same? How then do we vote against socialism? It doesn't seem like we can.

 

[Andylusion]

Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?

One possible solution would require US voters to stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when they vote for House and Senate representatives. My state has third-party candidates appearing on every ballot; it's relatively simple to vote Green or Libertarian or whatever instead of casting your vote for the richest 1% of Americans.

Bernie Sanders for President?

A couple of things. You don't know how much Bernie Sanders has. No one does. He's kept his finances fairly hidden.

First, Sanders himself earned $174K a year. Plus his wife while President of Burlington College, was earning $150K a year.
Interestingly Sanders also has rental property, and I can't find how much he's earning off of that.
Additionally he has royalty income from his published book "The Speech", and I can't find how much that is.

Lastly, Sanders wife, has a self-employed business of buying and selling Antiques, and we have no idea how much they are raking in on that, or even what it is.

We do know that Sanders has been giving money from Campaign donations, to "pay" his wife a consulting fee.

So with a household income of no less than $350K a year, it wouldn't take very much rental income, book sales royalties, and paying your wife a "consulting fee", to hit the 1% mark. The top 1% income is only $388K.

Now all of that said...... I am a bit confused by the self-avowed socialist aspect of Sanders.

First.... how does a 'socialist' have rental property they are earning an income off of?

Second... how does a 'socialist' publish a book with a major publisher, and sit in a corporate Barnes & Noble, and sign copies of his book?

Third... how does the wife of socialist end up at an expensive private college, where tuition is over $22K per year?

Fourth... how does the wife of a socialist end up with her own self employed business, buying and selling stuff for a profit?

Fifth... how does a socialist end up with investments with Valic, which is a major corporate subsidiary of AIG, one of the most hated of capitalist companies in the world?

In fact, how does a self avowed socialist have stock mutual funds at all?

For example, Sanders has Valic Large Cap funds. According to Valic, the large cap fund top 10 stock investments are with.....

Occidental Petroleum Corp
Pfizer Inc
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Merck & Co. Inc.
General Electric Co
Wells Fargo & Co
Cisco Systems Inc
Ameriprise Financial Inc
Citigroup Inc
Bank of America Corp

JPMorgan Chase? GE? Wells Fargo? Bank of America? CITIGROUP?!

So all these companies that specifically I've seen *YOU* screaming about, the dude you promote for president is earning dividends from stocks in those companies?

This is the most wealthy, capitalist acting 'avowed socialist' I've ever seen. At least the real hippy socialists actually lived in impoverished communes. This guy owns shares in big corporations, has $350K income, runs his own business, is selling books, and antiques, and has rentals.....

He might not be CEO of a hedge fund like Romney, or have a $45 Million dollar Kennedy Trust fund..... but there is nothing here suggesting he's Joe the Plumber, or anything but a Capitalist.

 

[Andylusion]

Androw, how do we vote for a non-socialist? It's evident that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the rescue of the banks. Do you recommend third party? What if that third party would have done the same? How then do we vote against socialism? It doesn't seem like we can.

0.o

In 2008, during the election, I had a list with me, of every single individual who voted in favor of TARP.

I voted against every single person on the ballot that voted for TARP.

I did the same in 2010, except with the addition of everyone that voted for Obamacare and the Stimulus. I did the same in 2012. I will do the same this year.

It's not that hard.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?

I completely disagree with everything you just said.

First off, you realize that if what you just said is in fact true, then you yourself are wasting your vote as well.

"Both parties are the same"
"You are wasting your vote if you don't vote Democrap or Republican"

Hur? You don't see a problem here?

However, my real problem is with the party politics. I sarcastically refer to 'Democraps', because generally speaking it is in fact Democraps that defend law breakers (Clinton), and support socialism.

[ame=http://youtu.be/o3I-PVVowFY]Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) - YouTube[/ame]

That said...

There are, and have been, Democrats that I would have no problem at all voting for, even for president.

Equally there are and were Republicans I would never even entertain the thought of voting for. McCain and Romney for example.

The problem is the ideology, not the political party. A political party is just that.... it's a political party. They will change their stance on a moments notice, to whatever they believe will best allow them to win.

That's why you always vote based on the individual if you are smart, not what party they are from.

And lastly, that whole "you are wasting your vote, if you vote for anyone not a Democrap or Republican".... do you not see that this is exactly what they want you to believe?

More often than not, merely giving a traditional candidate a tough fight, will force that candidate to change their stance to match the public. The tea party hasn't been super effective at having their specifically supported politicians elected.... but simply by challenging mainstream Republicans, they have forced them to move in the direction they want many times.

Similarly, the more we vote for alternative candidates, the more we can send a message.

From what I've seen, politics is far more responsive to what people want, than we realize as a nation. The problem is, we the people are not consistent on what we want.

When you refused to vote for Romney, you actually voted for Obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago.

The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.

No one has said old genetic modification is bad and no one has said we should avoid it. However, the new genetic modification that started in 1980s is different. It uses different methods and produces different results. People wonder how these differences affect the plant since new bio-engineering is not the same thing as regular, slow modification over generations. Thus, in order to be "safe" one only needs to avoid the new type of genetic modification. No one thinks the old type is bad or unusual.

Show me a single example where I claimed the methods were identical. I dare you.

You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. This is obviously false. To avoid new bio-engineering seeds does not require that people avoid the old genetic modification.

You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO.

Nope. Never said that. Not even once.

Is English your second language?

 

[deltex1]

Androw, how do we vote for a non-socialist? It's evident that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the rescue of the banks. Do you recommend third party? What if that third party would have done the same? How then do we vote against socialism? It doesn't seem like we can.

0.o

In 2008, during the election, I had a list with me, of every single individual who voted in favor of TARP.

I voted against every single person on the ballot that voted for TARP.

I did the same in 2010, except with the addition of everyone that voted for Obamacare and the Stimulus. I did the same in 2012. I will do the same this year.

It's not that hard.

God bless you Androw...you did good...my only question is what are you doing with your left hand as you face the sun?

 

[gnarlylove]

You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO.

Nope. Never said that. Not even once.

Yeah, you did:

"The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming."

It is plain that slow genetic modification is safe. Bio engineering is a different matter. Thus, for people to be safe, they may want to avoid certain foods from 1983. I'm not saying bio engineering is bad, I am only saying that if someone wants to be safe, they need not avoid food from before human farming, but they only need to avoid certain seeds produced mostly by Monsanto.

 

[georgephillip]

Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money. Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out. Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.

All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong. Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.

When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.

That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia. ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".

Whatever. No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?

Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.

Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

 

[georgephillip]

Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?

One possible solution would require US voters to stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when they vote for House and Senate representatives. My state has third-party candidates appearing on every ballot; it's relatively simple to vote Green or Libertarian or whatever instead of casting your vote for the richest 1% of Americans.

Bernie Sanders for President?

A couple of things. You don't know how much Bernie Sanders has. No one does. He's kept his finances fairly hidden.

First, Sanders himself earned $174K a year. Plus his wife while President of Burlington College, was earning $150K a year.
Interestingly Sanders also has rental property, and I can't find how much he's earning off of that.
Additionally he has royalty income from his published book "The Speech", and I can't find how much that is.

Lastly, Sanders wife, has a self-employed business of buying and selling Antiques, and we have no idea how much they are raking in on that, or even what it is.

We do know that Sanders has been giving money from Campaign donations, to "pay" his wife a consulting fee.

So with a household income of no less than $350K a year, it wouldn't take very much rental income, book sales royalties, and paying your wife a "consulting fee", to hit the 1% mark. The top 1% income is only $388K.

Now all of that said...... I am a bit confused by the self-avowed socialist aspect of Sanders.

First.... how does a 'socialist' have rental property they are earning an income off of?

Second... how does a 'socialist' publish a book with a major publisher, and sit in a corporate Barnes & Noble, and sign copies of his book?

Third... how does the wife of socialist end up at an expensive private college, where tuition is over $22K per year?

Fourth... how does the wife of a socialist end up with her own self employed business, buying and selling stuff for a profit?

Fifth... how does a socialist end up with investments with Valic, which is a major corporate subsidiary of AIG, one of the most hated of capitalist companies in the world?

In fact, how does a self avowed socialist have stock mutual funds at all?

For example, Sanders has Valic Large Cap funds. According to Valic, the large cap fund top 10 stock investments are with.....

Occidental Petroleum Corp
Pfizer Inc
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Merck & Co. Inc.
General Electric Co
Wells Fargo & Co
Cisco Systems Inc
Ameriprise Financial Inc
Citigroup Inc
Bank of America Corp

JPMorgan Chase? GE? Wells Fargo? Bank of America? CITIGROUP?!

So all these companies that specifically I've seen *YOU* screaming about, the dude you promote for president is earning dividends from stocks in those companies?

This is the most wealthy, capitalist acting 'avowed socialist' I've ever seen. At least the real hippy socialists actually lived in impoverished communes. This guy owns shares in big corporations, has $350K income, runs his own business, is selling books, and antiques, and has rentals.....

He might not be CEO of a hedge fund like Romney, or have a $45 Million dollar Kennedy Trust fund..... but there is nothing here suggesting he's Joe the Plumber, or anything but a Capitalist.

Do you ever bother with links, or are we supposed to trust you?
Sanders has an approximate net worth of $116,000 to $800,000, ranking him 84th among his Senate peers.

His assets are 100% invested in real estate with a Valic Large Cap Fund investment of $1001-$15,000.

Socialists aren't required to sleep under bridges and eat out of dumpsters.

Bernie's still the best choice I've seen for 2016.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00000528&year=2012

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO.

Nope. Never said that. Not even once.

Yeah, you did:

"The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming."

It is plain that slow genetic modification is safe. Bio engineering is a different matter. Thus, for people to be safe, they may want to avoid certain foods from 1983. I'm not saying bio engineering is bad, I am only saying that if someone wants to be safe, they need not avoid food from before human farming, but they only need to avoid certain seeds produced mostly by Monsanto.

Yeah, you did:

No I didn't. I'll ask again, is English your second language?

It is plain that slow genetic modification is safe.

You have any proof for this claim?
What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

 

[Andylusion]

What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."

If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.

All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong. Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.

When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.

That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia. ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".

Whatever. No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?

Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.

Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic. It's not static.
Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.

Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.

And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty. Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?

And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US. Chinese poverty was $2 a day. Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?

Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty? I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.

Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right. You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s. In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.

You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.

You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.

So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing. There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment. Not in the past, nor in the present. So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.

 

[gnarlylove]

What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.

 

[Andylusion]

What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.

You know, every single scientific advancement that has ever happened in the world, has some amount of risk.

It's like the UK and the EU, just announced they are pushing a carbon capture system, and it will pump CO2 down under the ocean.

Is there 'risk' in that? Yes of course. No one has any idea what pumping billions of tons of CO2 under the ocean is going to do.

The difference is, GMO food, is typically done to increase production. In other words, it's done to feed more people with better quality food.

The CO2, is to fight a myth of man-made global warming.

Now you tell me.... what are the huge dangers of GMO foods? I'll listen! What's the huge harm?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983.

ESL? Reread what I posted. Did you see bioengineering in my post? No.

What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

 

[gnarlylove]

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983.


What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification. Since this type had existed for millennia, human beings had come to accept it as a low risk modification and therefore relatively safe modification. So people 91 years ago did not have to avoid return to seeds from ten thousand thousand years ago.

So when you say "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is false. There was low risk involved in the slow type of genetic modification. Since 1983 a new type of genetic modification was employed. So since then, in order for people to be on the safe side of things (i.e. taking as little risk as possible) they only need to avoid seeds produced since 1983 (mostly from Monsanto). Therefore, your statement "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is obviously false. In order for your statement to be true and accurate it must say "The only way to be safe is to eat seeds from before 1983 or non-bio-engineered seeds of today."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983.


What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification. Since this type had existed for millennia, human beings had come to accept it as a low risk modification and therefore relatively safe modification. So people 91 years ago did not have to avoid return to seeds from ten thousand thousand years ago.

So when you say "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is false. There was low risk involved in the slow type of genetic modification. Since 1983 a new type of genetic modification was employed. So since then, in order for people to be on the safe side of things (i.e. taking as little risk as possible) they only need to avoid seeds produced since 1983 (mostly from Monsanto). Therefore, your statement "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is obviously false.

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

So when you say "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is false.

Nope. Low-info whiners read some silly article about humans interfering with nature, Monsanto being the current favorite culprit, and about wet their pants. How can we interfere with the perfect food Gaia gave us, we have to get back to nature.
Said low-info whiners, you included, didn't realize that humans have been interfering with "natural food" for over 10,000 years. So if they truly want to eat "unmodified food", they need to find foods that existed 10, 12, maybe 20 thousand years ago, because we've been genetically modifying our food for that long.

Get back to me when you've educated yourself on the science. LOL!

 

[gnarlylove]

What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?

There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.

You know, every single scientific advancement that has ever happened in the world, has some amount of risk.


The difference is, GMO food, is typically done to increase production. In other words, it's done to feed more people with better quality food.

Now you tell me.... what are the huge dangers of GMO foods? I'll listen! What's the huge harm?

I have not spoken of those dangers. If you notice, I was accurate in stating slow genetic modification is low risk. The risk in consuming bio-engineered seeds is relatively higher than sticking to seeds not bio-engineered but on the whole, I personally do not think bio-engineered seeds are necessarily harmful. If there are any independent long-term studies done, please cite them because these are empirical claims and can be verified by empirical study. But forgoing such essential research, then the fact remains Monsanto's seeds carry a slightly bigger risk to human health than do regular seeds. This does not mean they actually cause harm, it simply means without empirical study, it must be acknowledged that this type of bioengineering is different and thus merits a different understanding than regular genetic modification through seed selection. Until long-term studies are done by independent researchers (without Monsanto funding) we must keep these two types of seeds distinct in our understanding and vocabulary.

But my claim has never been that they are necessarily harmful. I have simply tried to get Todders to understand their difference and to not equivocate on that relevant difference.

 

[gnarlylove]

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?

You don't know?

I'm shocked.

 

[gnarlylove]

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?

You don't know?

I'm shocked.

I am not smart like you. Will you tell me what second type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?