Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?

Exactly; the liberal logic -

If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.

Unreal...

Legally and morally if I accept your bribe we are both guilty of corruption.

It's not a bribe. Politicians deliberately write legislation designed to harm specific industries so they can milk them for donations.

 

[MikeK]

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.

At this stage of decline it is. But as the situation worsens we will be seeing morgue wagons making morning sweeps as they did during the Great Depression and our national prison census, which already is the highest in the world, will easily triple as millions choose larceny over starvation. Instead of police there will be soldiers patrolling our streets, martial law will prevail, the Great American Middle Class will quickly become a vague memory, and life in America will someday vastly exceed Orwell's morbid vision of the future.

The U.S. is the least capable of the world's societies to deal with widespread poverty because our culture has been poisoned by excess.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

At this stage of decline it is. But as the situation worsens we will be seeing morgue wagons making morning sweeps as they did during the Great Depression and our national prison census, which already is the highest in the world, will easily triple as millions choose larceny over starvation. Instead of police there will be soldiers patrolling our streets, martial law will prevail, the Great American Middle Class will quickly become a vague memory, and life in America will someday vastly exceed Orwell's morbid vision of the future.

The U.S. is the least capable of the world's societies to deal with widespread poverty because our culture has been poisoned by excess.

"On Monday, the New York Times featured, on the front page of its website, a long piece of giddy gush about the latest trend in luxury hoteling: super-suites for the super-rich, costing up to $28,000 a night.

"For more than 1,100 words, the Times gives us an uncritical (indeed, adoring) panorama of the new high-swankery expected by our owners as they perambulate around the global plantation.

"There’s the $25,000-per-night room in the New York Palace, a three-story 'penthouse Versailles,' the Times, all atremble with excitement, tells us, which comes complete with a million dollars’ worth of designer jewellery on display to refresh the weary eyes of the travelling titan. Or New York’s Mandarin Oriental, 3,300 square feet of even greater opulence — a steal at $28,000 a night..."

The poison a "Penthouse Versailles" inflicts on the majority of the global population has recently come to light again, this time from Oxfam:

"On the same day — the same day — that the NYT’s grovel-and-gush piece appeared, Oxfam released a report on the astonishing, well-nigh incomprehensible level of inequality between the Times’ celebrated super-rich and the rest of the human race.

"The Oxfam study showed that the richest 85 individuals on earth have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people on the planet. 85 people control as much wealth as 3.5 billion.

"This is not the natural fruit of the market’s mythical “invisible hand.” It is the result of carefully crafted, deliberate policies put in place over the past 40 years by elected leaders who have been bought, like chattel, by the rich, and have used the power of the state to skew the political, economic and social structure of nation after nation toward the ever-increasing domination of an ever-smaller circle of elites. As Larry Elliot points out in the Guardian:

"For much of the 20th century..."

Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The rich, you see, really are different.
They're swanky slaves, and the only thing worse are the mindless slave wannabees who apologize for every elite hog pen their role models construct

 

[georgephillip]

Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised.

Inequality exists because people are not equal.

"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."

They're not that unequal.

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

Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.

The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.

The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
Despite socialist whining to the contrary.

Back before capitalism that guy who gathered enough food shared with the guy who didn't. Do you think chattel slavery played a role in the formation of the first private fortunes?

 

[georgephillip]

10-4. If it is earned, then there's no problem regardless. Don't fall into the wealth envy crap.

There is no "wealthy envy crap". That is simply your subjective bullshit rationalization.

Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"

Moron.

Absolutely correct, imho, regarding Wall Street's Boy's next SOTU, and won't we all be morons if we don't remember how the richest 1% of US citizens have captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009 while the bottom 90% got poorer?

Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[georgephillip]

Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised.

Inequality exists because people are not equal.

"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."

They're not that unequal.

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

They're not that unequal.

How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.

 

[georgephillip]

"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."

They're not that unequal.

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

Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.

The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.

The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
Despite socialist whining to the contrary.

The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.

The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agree it is the presence of conflict between buyer and seller as well as competition that determine price. That doesn't negate what I said about your role when purchasing labor and selling a product. I was intentionally only talking about one side of the market equation.

Why? We were discussing the market, not just the one aspect of the market.

In economics the phrase "Ceteris paribus" is used to describe this kind of approach. It means everything else remaining equal. Everything else remaining equal it is in your interest to pay your employees less. I understand that reality is complicated and wage can impact things like productivity and turnover. That doesn't change your role in the market though. The market depends on this conflict of interest and it is that conflict that creates those good prices and those good decisions.

I reject your classroom anaysis for what it is. It is not a conflict. Providing a service for a fair market price and paying employees what they're worth economically or more isn't a conflict. Taking their hard earned money and giving it to others is more of a conflict if you want to use that term. They want to hold onto their money, the government confiscates it.

A lot of your other comments get into you assuming a solution to the problem that I never suggested. The first step in this discussion is to establish a common understanding of how markets work and how different actors in the market try and maximize benefit to themselves.

I would also say that the act of maximizing profit should be about maximizing profit long term. You could also replace profit with benefit if you want but there is no getting around the fact that market economics is based on the premise that people act in their own self interest to maximize the benefit to them.

That's a lot of saying nothing. People start business to make money, not provide jobs. Why would that be news or wrong or even worthy of mention?

The point I was trying to make here is that you are subject to two larger markets(the labor market and the consumer/consumption market) and it in your direct interest to have different things happen in those markets. This direct interest is in conflict with the broader interest of the economy and ultimately the long term interest of the employer.

If you feel that you are worth more you ask for a raise. If you don't get the raise you stay or you leave. You can consider that a conflict but that attitude might explain your salary.

You are also confusing the demand of an individual to the demand of an entire economy. A group may demand a certain basket of goods and that basket of goods may change in makeup overtime and it may change in size over time. The size of the group may also change. The key idea here is not about what is in the basket but how big that basket is. If you want to talk about the US economy then you are looking at the basket of goods demanded by the US consumer and the basket of goods that has US production in it. (Imagine the Venn diagram)

Imagine a beanie cap with a propeller on it.

Even if the government did nothing it would be impacting the markets being talked about by being passive relative to the world around it.

Huh?

 

[Redfish]

Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.

The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.

The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
Despite socialist whining to the contrary.

The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.

The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.

Have you told Oprah and Beyonce and J Zee and Beiber that you hate them for being rich and successful? Have you demanded that they give up half of what they have for the "common good" ?

 

[P@triot]

There is no "wealthy envy crap". That is simply your subjective bullshit rationalization.

Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"

Moron.

Absolutely correct, imho, regarding Wall Street's Boy's next SOTU, and won't we all be morons if we don't remember how the richest 1% of US citizens have captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009 while the bottom 90% got poorer?

Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Exactly! So lets remember! Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat president. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat Senate majority leader. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat speaker of the house.

Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded unemployment. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded poverty. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which aims to do all of this so as to ensure their power through an electorate dependent on government for their every need.

And then....lets remember not to vote for Dumbocrats and their failed "trickle up poverty" economic policies ever again!

 

[Bombur]

In what circumstances is government needed?

.

There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.

When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.

From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.

I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.

Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.

Uh the justification for the revolution was based on very strong statements of morality.

I guess you might need a better understanding of ethics to have this conversation.

I would also point out that we live in a nation where the people can and will vote their morality whether you like it or not. Once that morality is established the only thing left is to decide what is the best way to meet those moral standards.

So yeah you are totally wrong in every way possible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"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."

They're not that unequal.

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

They're not that unequal.

How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.

Who said anything about natural rights?
I'm talking about productivity.

Exploitation?
Commies are funny.
You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
Whiner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.

The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.

The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
Despite socialist whining to the contrary.

The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.

The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.

 

[bripat9643]

"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."

They're not that unequal.

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

They're not that unequal.

How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.

Bill Gates never "took" a thing. Every transaction involved in building Bill Gates' fortune was entirely voluntary. Taking requires the use of force.

You don't get to redefine English so you can put looters on the same ethical plane as honest men.

 

[bripat9643]

Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.

The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.

The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
Despite socialist whining to the contrary.

The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.

The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.

That statistic is pure horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.

When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.

From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.

I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.

Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.

Uh the justification for the revolution was based on very strong statements of morality.

I guess you might need a better understanding of ethics to have this conversation.

I would also point out that we live in a nation where the people can and will vote their morality whether you like it or not. Once that morality is established the only thing left is to decide what is the best way to meet those moral standards.

So yeah you are totally wrong in every way possible.

People also vote out of envy and hatred. That's what motivates the votes of almost every Democrat.

 

[Bombur]

I agree it is the presence of conflict between buyer and seller as well as competition that determine price. That doesn't negate what I said about your role when purchasing labor and selling a product. I was intentionally only talking about one side of the market equation.

Why? We were discussing the market, not just the one aspect of the market.

In economics the phrase "Ceteris paribus" is used to describe this kind of approach. It means everything else remaining equal. Everything else remaining equal it is in your interest to pay your employees less. I understand that reality is complicated and wage can impact things like productivity and turnover. That doesn't change your role in the market though. The market depends on this conflict of interest and it is that conflict that creates those good prices and those good decisions.

I reject your classroom anaysis for what it is. It is not a conflict. Providing a service for a fair market price and paying employees what they're worth economically or more isn't a conflict. Taking their hard earned money and giving it to others is more of a conflict if you want to use that term. They want to hold onto their money, the government confiscates it.
That's a lot of saying nothing. People start business to make money, not provide jobs. Why would that be news or wrong or even worthy of mention?
If you feel that you are worth more you ask for a raise. If you don't get the raise you stay or you leave. You can consider that a conflict but that attitude might explain your salary.

You are also confusing the demand of an individual to the demand of an entire economy. A group may demand a certain basket of goods and that basket of goods may change in makeup overtime and it may change in size over time. The size of the group may also change. The key idea here is not about what is in the basket but how big that basket is. If you want to talk about the US economy then you are looking at the basket of goods demanded by the US consumer and the basket of goods that has US production in it. (Imagine the Venn diagram)

Imagine a beanie cap with a propeller on it.

Even if the government did nothing it would be impacting the markets being talked about by being passive relative to the world around it.

Huh?

It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.

Markets produce good results because there is a conflict of interest. If you reject this then you reject the reason we trust markets to produce good results. You are also rejecting the foundation of the reasoning which establishes that government involvement gets in the way of those good results.

The reason I am talking about things the way I am is to establish common ground and to talk about markets that are not healthy and are not producing good results. The way you are arguing is incorrectly assuming a healthy market to the point where you reject the nature of markets and undermine your own position.

I don't know how I can explain demand any better so I will provide a link.

Aggregate demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.

 

[racewright]

Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.

Uh the justification for the revolution was based on very strong statements of morality.

I guess you might need a better understanding of ethics to have this conversation.

I would also point out that we live in a nation where the people can and will vote their morality whether you like it or not. Once that morality is established the only thing left is to decide what is the best way to meet those moral standards.

So yeah you are totally wrong in every way possible.

People also vote out of envy and hatred. That's what motivates the votes of almost every Democrat.

Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...
I want a brand new Caddy toooo.

How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???

 

[Contumacious]

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.

In what circumstances is government needed?

.

There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality.

How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality .



The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality ". Why do were those things omitted?

.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.

I'm not arguing at all. You are trying to dazzle people with classroom theories and I'm saying the real world doesn't work that way and have 27 years in business to base my opinion on. You don't have anything but theories and insults.

Markets produce good results because there is a conflict of interest.

Wrong. No matter how many times to regurgitate it. Markets produce good results because people want the goods and services and are willing to part with their money. It isn't a conflict, it's the exact opposite. It a symbiotic relationship.

If you reject this then you reject the reason we trust markets to produce good results. You are also rejecting the foundation of the reasoning which establishes that government involvement gets in the way of those good results.

I don't trust the government, period. They seem to eff up whatever they get their hands on, that's the conflict, not the consumer and business.

The reason I am talking about things the way I am is to establish common ground and to talk about markets that are not healthy and are not producing good results. The way you are arguing is incorrectly assuming a healthy market to the point where you reject the nature of markets and undermine your own position.

You're talking in circles and think it's smart. I don't think the market is healthy, why don't you read the posts instead of reciting from your handbook? You are undermining your credibility when you don't understand the point. I said the more government gets involved, the bigger it grows, the worse the economy gets.

I said governments don't make money. It comes from the private sector, the public sector just spends it. If the public sector grows the private sector shrinks. It isn't the rocket science you make it out to be. Not that economies are simple, but you've missed the main point be trying to be intellectual instead.

As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.

We've had a thriving economy with all that so your point is moot. And I never claimed government inaction was any guarantee to success. You brought that up apparently so you could argue against it.