Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

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 happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.

 

[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?

How do you define to "harm democracy" ?

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

.

I would say democracy is harmed when one percent of voters pay for the election campaigns and retirements of our elected representatives. Or when much of our judiciary is composed of corporate lawyers. The power of the corporation threatens to turn this Constitutional Republic into an oligarchy.

Chomsky says it pretty clearly:


"Q: You view corporations as being incompatible with democracy, and you say that is we apply the concepts that are used in political analysis, corporations are fascist. What do you mean?

"A: I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders.

"Fascism is a term that doesn’t strictly apply to corporations, but if you look at them, power goes strictly top-down. Ultimate power resides in the hands of investors, owners, banks, etc. People can disrupt, make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. People who aren’t owners and investors have nothing much to say about it.

"That’s something of an exaggeration because corporations are subject to some legal requirements and there is some limited degree of public control. But corporations are more totalitarian than most institutions we call totalitarian in the political arena."

Secrets, Lies, and Democracy, by Noam Chomsky

 

[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 happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.

The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?

Are you rich?

 

[dblack]

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

It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.

The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?

'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?

Have you given much thought to why wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?

 

[georgephillip]

It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.

The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?

'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?

Have you given much thought to why wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?

A wall between church and state.

 

[dblack]

The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?

'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?

Have you given much thought to why wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?

A wall between church and state.

Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.

 

[SAYIT]

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

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

 

[SAYIT]

"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?

.

I would say democracy is harmed when one percent of voters pay for the election campaigns and retirements of our elected representatives. Or when much of our judiciary is composed of corporate lawyers. The power of the corporation threatens to turn this Constitutional Republic into an oligarchy.

Chomsky says it pretty clearly:


"Q: You view corporations as being incompatible with democracy, and you say that is we apply the concepts that are used in political analysis, corporations are fascist. What do you mean?

"A: I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders.

"Fascism is a term that doesn’t strictly apply to corporations, but if you look at them, power goes strictly top-down. Ultimate power resides in the hands of investors, owners, banks, etc. People can disrupt, make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. People who aren’t owners and investors have nothing much to say about it.

"That’s something of an exaggeration because corporations are subject to some legal requirements and there is some limited degree of public control. But corporations are more totalitarian than most institutions we call totalitarian in the political arena."

Secrets, Lies, and Democracy, by Noam Chomsky

The beauty of America's capitalism is that anyone can become an owner. It's a story we see repeated time and time again. The flip side is that those who don't manage to do so are free to whine about those who do.

 

[georgephillip]

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

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."

 

[georgephillip]

'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?

Have you given much thought to why wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?

A wall between church and state.

Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

 

[SAYIT]

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

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."

It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw

Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?

 

[georgephillip]

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."

It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw

Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?

Your link:

"Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"

I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?

 

[SAYIT]

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

It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.

The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?

Are you rich?

Is that how you assuage your inadequacies? Why do you ASSUME others are afraid? Is it because you feel so powerless? We the people have the right and the power to adjust our democracy at the ballot box and we do. We recently brought down the House majority leader (see: Eric Cantor). The fact that you see "the rich" as a single entity operating as a cabal says much about your very narrow view of America, Americans and life.

 

[SAYIT]

Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."

It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw

Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?

Your link:

"Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"

I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Do you have different figures? Do you doubt the percentages are as stated? Do you doubt that the top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes or that the bottom 50% pays 2.25%?

 

[jasonnfree]

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

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!

 

[georgephillip]

It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's HALF of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!

Which is richer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets. When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent. Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%. It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.

It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!

Which is richer?

Which spent for decades with no restrictions?

 

[dblack]

A wall between church and state.

Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?

???

 

[dnsmith35]

The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace. The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesn’t work. Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us. The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,”stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.”
Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs. The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws. Labor laws and don’t forget unions. New Deal, FDR. The rich called him a traitor to his class.
When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

You are preaching to the choir when you argue to me about regulation. I have always been for regulation of business and industry, without which we would have a real major issue fairness in society.

Beyond that you have several comments which are simply untrue. I am not a conservative, I am liberal, JUST NOT LEFT WING EXTREME, as some on this thread are. Your contention that labor has "the power" to organized into unions may be true, but the majority of labor in the US chooses NOT TO HAVE THEM. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized and for good reason. The government has taken over the role of unions in so far as fairness and safety rules in the work place. Union usefulness has just about run its course in the US. However in 3rd world labor markets the labor revolution has not yet taken root, and that is where unions can still be useful to society. In addition protectionism against the big bad foreign competition does the US labor force more harm than good and globalization is here and will be here whether you like it or not. Also, your concept of conservatism is warped. Conservatives are the ones who WANT PROTECTIONISM and the status quo rather than globalism, and it is we liberals (not left wingers) who want to do business with the world such that ALL HUMANS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE. The platitudes you throw out are a reflection of the propaganda sources you read or listen to, and do not reflect reality in the Industrialized world.

Bobo (the clown)

1. The need for unions has never been stronger than it is today. Where has the middle class gone? Bunch of white collar broke asses raising families on $30K plus an hour. I see it. It's all around you. A lot of your friends went from middle class in the 90's to where they are today. Not saving anything, in debt, barely making ends meet, haven't had a raise in years, cost of living going up. Or a lot of my friends are making much less than they did in the 90's. They took steps backward. And today the jobs just aren't paying what they use to. So a lot of people are working but they are working for much less. It has become the new normal in America. Not saving a dime for retirement??? The new norm? And don't act like the GOP hate this. Paying employees less? They love it don't pretend they don't.

Your suggestion that I am either conservative or a GOP is untrue. Also, Unions are passé. The value of unions was to fight for reasonable wages, safety and decent work conditions. The government has taken over the role of unions with labor laws.

2. I'm re reading your rebuttal and I don't see where you are pointing out something I said that was untrue.

See above. If you still don't see, you DON'T WANT TO SEE.

3. Do you know the tactics that corporations pull to get their employees to not vote to unionize? I wouldn't be so sure about how people feel about unions. The majority of people don't like unions because they've never been in one and they've been brainwashed to think they are bad. They aren't perfect but I can bet you that if a lot of people could vote anonymously and without fear/intimidation they would choose to have a union represent them.

Not a shred of evidence to support that assertion, and I don't believe any of it.

ANYONE who hasn't gotten a raise in 10 years but their ceo is now making 350 times what they make when before it was 35 times more is a fool.

Like every one has an asshole and an opinion. So now you express opinion which I am sure you can find supported by many left wing extremist propaganda sites.

The smartest guys I ever knew worked in a union factory because at least they were smart enough to get their fair share of the profits.

Apparently you don't know many people. As a liberal with an MBA with a major in economics and an Ed.S in Psychology (since economics is based on human behavior) I consulted with hundreds of businesses on how to improve labor relations, ie keep their employees happy. Most of the process was talking to a large swath of the labor force. Based on their opinions, you are 180 degrees out of sync.

P.S. The only reason non union companies paid so well all these years is because they were afraid their employees would unionize. They aren't afraid anymore and look where wages are.

More propaganda!

If you are a liberal you aren't a smart one.

ROTFLMAO! You lose again.

Obviously you are not aware that the top 1%s income has not fluctuated up much over the last 44 years.