Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[sealybobo]

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.

The poor haven't benefited from the unbridled capitalism you and your ilk promote. They've benefited from a capitalism held in check by regulations and labor unions. Those checks have been slowly eroding over the past several decades. As a consequence the share of benefis that accrue to the working class with every economic advance have been getting smaller and smaller over time.

Smart guy.

 

[Unkotare]

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to office?

 

[sealybobo]

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to office?

You fools say gas was cheap when Bush left office. You forget why. The economy went into a great recession. In part because GAS WAS OVER $4 a gallon! I remember truck drivers were staying home rather than drive because it wasn't worth it.

Republicans forget that gas was cheap in 2007 because in 2006 the oil companies helped break the economy.

Remember folks the GOP broke/trashed the economy on purpose. How did it work out for them? GREAT? How did it work out for you? Not so good? Then stop voting GOP. You aren't rich enough to be a Republican.

 

[sealybobo]

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to office?

Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up. How smart are you?

You keep crying for drill baby drill so you can save 60 cents while they **** you out of $13.

 

[dblack]

Yea, they think they are worth it. And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.

Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.

Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.

If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong. Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies. I know how it works. I have a brother who's one of them. Do you know how it works? Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.

I'm not arguing that it's "all fair". I suspect there's plenty of corruption going on. I'm just taking issue with the notion that there should be limits on the amount of money we can give to each other. That's like saying that because there is campaign corruption, we shouldn't have the freedom to vote for whoever want. The solution is dumb, and doesn't even really address the problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yea, they think they are worth it. And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.

Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.

Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.

If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong. Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies. I know how it works. I have a brother who's one of them. Do you know how it works? Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.

You are arguing like a VP or CEO or Libertarian would. We should just all boycott those companies, except for a few things.

1. They'll all bad.
2. They have a monopoly

Hey, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact that so many less poor and middle class people are going to show up this midterm than will in 2016 tells me that the people are happy with what they are making. If they want better/more then they need to show up and vote and next time there company votes for a union vote YES. Have some balls. Don't be scared you'll lose that $8 job.

a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.

OMG! Private owners deciding for themselves how to spend their own money, how to run their own company!!!

How can this be allowed in America?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.

Oh yeah, 'cause that worked out so well for Venezuela and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS TRIED SUCH SOCIALIST NONSENSE.

At least heavily regulated the oil industry.

I'll give you a great example. The oil companies/lobbyists/republicans/rich/sara palin were all screaming DRILL BABY DRILL, when the fact is that would have lowered gas prices 3 cents a gallon. BFD.

But they/you don't want to discuss how wallstreet speculation is jacking up the price $12 for SUV's and $8 per fill up on economy cars.

So keep crying about 3 cents and keep allowing speculators to needlessly jack up the price of gas $8 a fillup on Im sure you drive an economy car.

The oil companies/lobbyists/republicans/rich/sara palin were all screaming DRILL BABY DRILL, when the fact is that would have lowered gas prices 3 cents a gallon.

OMG! Lowering the price? Let's not do that.

Liberals want to raise the price. That must be a good idea, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to office?

Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up. How smart are you?

You keep crying for drill baby drill so you can save 60 cents while they **** you out of $13.

Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up.

I'd ask you to prove it, but I know that's a futile request.

 

[Unkotare]

I suspect that some of these mindless liberal drones actually believe the bullshit they have been instructed to regurgitate.



If someone wants a more socialist system, I suggest they go try living in one for an extended period and then reevaluate their conclusions.

 

[dnsmith35]

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to office?

Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up. How smart are you?

You keep crying for drill baby drill so you can save 60 cents while they **** you out of $13.

Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up.

I'd ask you to prove it, but I know that's a futile request.

Speculators may cost us something, but certainly not $8 to $18 a fill up. But what the socialist oriented idiots on the thread refuse to acknowledge is, if we allowed a government controlled price on gasoline, the left wingers would add $5 to $7 a GALLON in their onslaught on fossil fuels like they have in Europe. State and federal taxes increase the price by $1 in some states as it is. Where I live the price of gasoline INCLUDING TAX is $3.33 a gallon, and a fill up without taxes for a 25 gallon tank $70 in my Expedition.

 

[dnsmith35]

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to office?

You fools say gas was cheap when Bush left office. You forget why. The economy went into a great recession. In part because GAS WAS OVER $4 a gallon! I remember truck drivers were staying home rather than drive because it wasn't worth it.

Republicans forget that gas was cheap in 2007 because in 2006 the oil companies helped break the economy.

So much bullshit and so little brain power.

Remember folks the GOP broke/trashed the economy on purpose. How did it work out for them? GREAT? How did it work out for you? Not so good? Then stop voting GOP. You aren't rich enough to be a Republican.

The facts are it was neither the GOP nor the democrats who broke the economy. BOTH had a hand in it, from the inception of CRA to the bad monetary and fiscal policies of CLINTON AND BUSH PUT TOGETHER who broke the economy. The inflationary moves of housing prices started in 1997 and and continued until the balloon popped in 2006.

Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down. It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.

In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.

Now you tell me.... Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when? 1977. Look at the chart. In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.

Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade. Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced. (and it wasn't... for good reason).

In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things. He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.

HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube

In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans. Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

But it doesn't end there.... In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.

First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).

People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.

Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?

and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?

From the prior picture.....

Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up? 1997.

Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership. That's true, and no one I know, denies it.

The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997. The facts clearly show this. It's not ambiguous in any way.

And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending. We have court documents, with his name on them.

So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.

It's just a fact.​

This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell

 

[dnsmith35]

What I have noticed is, when the left wing extremists make vague claims, and the liberals and moderates come back with facts, the left wing extremists arguments fade into nothing. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ANSWER FACTS with their propaganda.

 

[JT8691]

If incomes were equal what would be the incentive for new innovations?

What would be the incentive to start up new businesses that help society?

No one said all incomes should be equal.

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker. Today it's 350 times. Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing? You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it. You don't value workers apparently. You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums. I understand.

Your business has to benefit society. If you have a great product and don't need help/workers then cool, but if you do you have to pay American workers a fair wage, and you can no longer hire illegals like you and Mitt Romney did. They wouldn't stay here if no one was hiring. Right?

Anyways, your question tells me you need to start over from Politics 101 and re educate yourself. Either you are rich or you are I don't really mean crazy I mean stupid.

If you want workers to be eligible for profit sharing....if the company loses money are you also for the workers losing wages?

And forget about Politics 101...you need to take Macro 101, or go to business school.

Ultimately I think those that take the biggest risk and are the most important to a company's success get the most amount of money. Why should somebody flipping burgers NOT make significantly less than the person who's at risk (the owner of the restaurant)? If the company goes under the owner(s) lose EVERYTHING they have. The person flipping burgers moves down the street to take the next minimum wage job.

People get paid what they're worth. If somebody has a problem with it they have a few choices. They can: A) Get a better education B) Work hard for promotions C) Start their own business D) Gain a new skill E) Find a better paying job elsewhere or F) Whine and complain and blame others for their lack of success.

One of those options is the lazy way out. I'll let you figure out which one it is.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

Had Reagan been born in Russia, he would have sucked the party teat at least as slavishly as he slurped the corporate teat in this country.

"Reagan, like George W. Bush after him, failed to understand that when people come together into community, and then into nationhood, that they organize themselves to protect themselves from predators, both human and corporate, both domestic and foreign.

"This form of organization is called government.

"But the Reagan/Bush ideologues don't 'believe' in government, in anything other than a military and police capacity.

"Government should punish, they agree, but it should never nurture, protect, or defend individuals.

"Nurturing and protecting, they suggest, is the more appropriate role of religious institutions, private charities, families, and - perhaps most important - corporations.

"Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose."

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

 

[dnsmith35]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style? Just look at Russia. Russia is basically run by Corporations. Completely corrupt. Very similar to ours.

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

Had Reagan been born in Russia, he would have sucked the party teat at least as slavishly as he slurped the corporate teat in this country.

"Reagan, like George W. Bush after him, failed to understand that when people come together into community, and then into nationhood, that they organize themselves to protect themselves from predators, both human and corporate, both domestic and foreign.

"This form of organization is called government.

"But the Reagan/Bush ideologues don't 'believe' in government, in anything other than a military and police capacity.

"Government should punish, they agree, but it should never nurture, protect, or defend individuals.

"Nurturing and protecting, they suggest, is the more appropriate role of religious institutions, private charities, families, and - perhaps most important - corporations.

"Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose."

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'

Is it possible for you to find a more "suck teat" source? Common Dreams and Air America are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh but on the other extreme. If you believe ANYTHING they report you are a fool; and Truth-out.org is down right hostile.

The comment "There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth," is true. IT IS CALLED POVERTY FOR ALL BUT THE COMMISSARS.

 

[georgephillip]

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

"At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?

"It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week,(4/2005) by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.

"But it's a debate that's vital to the survival of democracy in America.

"In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death.

"He wrote, 'If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree...'"

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

 

[dnsmith35]

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

"At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?

"It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week,(4/2005) by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.

"But it's a debate that's vital to the survival of democracy in America.

"In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death.

"He wrote, 'If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree...'"

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

Still using bull crap propaganda eh George? Do you actually believe the thrust of that article?

 

[Contumacious]

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

"At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?

How do you define to "harm democracy" ?

And why should those of us who support Capitalism and a Constitutional Republic care?

.

 

[SAYIT]

What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.

Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.

Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.

If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong. Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies. I know how it works. I have a brother who's one of them. Do you know how it works? Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.

I'm not arguing that it's "all fair". I suspect there's plenty of corruption going on. I'm just taking issue with the notion that there should be limits on the amount of money we can give to each other. That's like saying that because there is campaign corruption, we shouldn't have the freedom to vote for whoever want. The solution is dumb, and doesn't even really address the problem.

It's called "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Socialists never manage to think past the part where they use our gov't to confiscate the PRIVATE WEALTH of some to pay for the needs and wants of others. They have no idea where that road leads.

 

[KNB]

How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses? Provide a link with the exact dollar amount. Or even just a rough estimate.