Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

I think some people are confusing the challenge to capitalism as a challenge to division of labor, exchange of goods or other fundamental concepts. This is not our challenge, these are essential to a functioning society.

I'm certainly under no such delusions. As you say, unless we plan on giving up on civilization altogether, these functions must happen. The question is whether they'll happen via voluntary interaction, or state coercion.

Again, if you're simply saying that there are people gaining unearned wealth through illicit means, I agree and I fully support any efforts to stop them. But that doesn't seem to be where you're headed.

 

[editec]

More on/off, black/white thinking here, I see.

CAn you people ever get your tiny all or nothing heads around the possibility that that SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?

Apparently not.

Some capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

Too much money in the supply side is NOT good for capitalism.

For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good for a while,. perhaps, but for capitalISM?

Not so good.

Educate yourselves, citizens.

Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More on/off, black/white thinking here, I see.

CAn you people ever get your tiny all or nothing heads around the possibility that that SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?

Apparently not.

Some capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

Too much money in the supply side is NOT good for capitalism.

For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good for a while,. perhaps, but for capitalISM?

Not so good.

Educate yourselves, citizens.

Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.

CAn you people ever get your tiny all or nothing heads around the possibility that that SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?

You're right, there's just too much freedom going on. Democrats should limit that somehow.

Some capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

Too much money in the supply side is NOT good for capitalism.

You think our problem is we have too much capital to invest?
Wow, never took an economics class, did you?

Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.

Yeah, but enough about liberals.

 

[dblack]

More on/off, black/white thinking here, I see.

CAn you people ever get your tiny all or nothing heads around the possibility that that SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?

Apparently not.

Some capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

Too much money in the supply side is NOT good for capitalism.

For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good for a while,. perhaps, but for capitalISM?

Not so good.

Educate yourselves, citizens.

Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.

I'm not arguing for or against wealth inequity. I'm arguing for sane justice and basics concepts of free society. The idea that people should be prevented from being 'too wealthy' is about as rational as saying that they should be prevented from being too popular or too talented.

Underlying this argument against 'inequality' is the presumption that those amassing large fortunes are doing something wrong, or that they're taking advantage of loopholes and imbalances in our legal structure. I'm actually in agreement that, often, this is the case. And when it is, we should make it our goal to correct the situation.

But when free market capitalism is working free of coercion, the results are inevitably and accurately the 'will of the people'. Claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to acquire too much wealth is essentially saying that we, as a society, shouldn't be allowed to give them too much wealth, which makes no sense to me, morally or otherwise.

 

[History]

Socialism guarantees Equal Sharing of misery

So I will take Capitalism any day

 

[gnarlylove]

The evil accusation subtracts from the substantive argument. No doubt exploitation goes on but its hard to say whose responsible directly since smart attorneys have insulated everyone. Just look at the big bankers walking free today. Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.

But you act like there needs to be detailed plans. This is simply another stumbling block. How did we create the society we live in today? Total foresight? HA!

This is the new policies and refreshing ideas we need in goverment and the private sector: unity and solidarity. Yet all you wish to do is cause strife on the same team, but you can't recognize you agree because you're too focused on bashing liberals and anything remotely close to non-Rep. ideas.

NO ONE CARES about the Dem v Rep when it comes to inequality. Both sides support the same basic policies, only differing on WEDGE issues that distract goof balls like yourself. Its hackneyed and a waste of time. Our real solutions do not involve Dems or Reps in office nor the ones waiting in the wing for a chance at lavish campaign contributions. Most of our congress is millionaires. Public servants are not suppose to be among the richest in society...are they?

With common sense approach to narrowing income, education and opportunity inequality we can create a more productive society--it's a basic fact: the better off the workers are the more likely they will serve their job with gusto rather than regret and misery). There will always be trouble afoot in human society (so no absolutely perfect Utopia) but the question is can we solve problems that are a threat to us? Currently we could not and are not. I'd hope the outrageous utopian vision of genuine representation and ability to ACT on behalf of the people isn't too much for you. Perhaps you're too use to the slop n' vote portrayed by mass media as real Democracy to notice your voice means about as much as a Jack-O-Lantern. Whether Rep. or Dem we are electing the same corporate interests. Obama has accepted billions in corporate money and has appointed tons of CEOs like Mr. Immelt of GE to head important economic councils. What a joke! Such practices are standard of Republicans (and Democrats) and fly in the face of genuine representation.

I propose the following two measures as guiding principles for erecting a satisfactory government (not utopian) so we can create general satisfaction among us, the people (hint: it doesn't involve making cheap shit cheaper, it involves improving the quality of life and allowing citizens to genuinely participate in a democracy):

7 Principles of Good Governance

See Chuck Feeney. He has given most of his 6 Billion away.

For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org

 

[gipper]

One of the biggest reasons for income inequality is caused by the very same people who condemn it.

The government school system is likely the biggest culprit...as they fail to educate poor children generation after generation. If you can't read or write effectively, you can't support yourself...something the Left knows well and is very good at exploiting for THEIR benefit.

But Progressives will fight to the death to keep the government school monopoly in place to protect their union teacher buddies and make sure those unions funnel lots of campaign cash into progressive political coffers.

Sick...very sick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The evil accusation subtracts from the substantive argument. No doubt exploitation goes on but its hard to say whose responsible directly since smart attorneys have insulated everyone. Just look at the big bankers walking free today. Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.

But you act like there needs to be detailed plans. This is simply another stumbling block. How did we create the society we live in today? Total foresight? HA!

This is the new policies and refreshing ideas we need in goverment and the private sector: unity and solidarity. Yet all you wish to do is cause strife on the same team, but you can't recognize you agree because you're too focused on bashing liberals and anything remotely close to non-Rep. ideas.

NO ONE CARES about the Dem v Rep when it comes to inequality. Both sides support the same basic policies, only differing on WEDGE issues that distract goof balls like yourself. Its hackneyed and a waste of time. Our real solutions do not involve in Dems or Reps that hold office nor the ones waiting in the wing for a chance at election victory. Most of our congress is millionaires. Public servants are not suppose to be among the richest in society...are they?

With common sense approach to narrowing income, education and opportunity inequality we can create a more productive society. There will always be trouble afoot but the question is can we solve problems that are a threat? Currently we could not and are not. I'd hope this outrageous utopian vision of actual representation isn't too much for you. Perhaps you're too use to the slop set before you on the mass media and accept it as HOW REALITY IS.

I propose the following two measures as guiding principles for erecting a satisfactory government (not utopian) so we can create general satisfaction among us, the people (hint: it doesn't involve making cheap shit cheaper, it involves improving the quality of life and allowing citizens to genuinely participate in a democracy):

7 Principles of Good Governance

See Chuck Feeney.

For more on recently elected Socialist, see here site VoteSawant.org

Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.

What fraud? Be specific.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm arguing for sane justice and basics concepts of free society. The idea that people should be prevented from being 'too wealthy' is about as rational as saying that they should be prevented from being too popular or too talented.

You act like anyone who has succeeded has come to that on their own terms and thus deserve every penny. Let's put aside the corruption objection, which we know is a significant minority of business transactions (on Wall St.).

The development of a good human being depends on countless variables including their upbringing, education, nutrition, and most importantly a community (teachers, neighbors, doctors, artists, etc) that encourages personal growth and challenges bad ideas. Ever heard that it takes a community to a raise a child? Well, its true those children raised in strong communities tend to do well for themselves and often gives back to that community.

No body deserves to own 25 houses and 100 cars. That simply is not feasible living standards or sustainable for an enduring human race. Why do they get 80% lavish excess while ~60% of the populous gets poverty or few opportunities? Your logic seems to get in the way of your conception of a healthy society, one where few if any citizens are "diseased." Having 2%/20% of the population be extremely well off does not somehow "balance" hunger and a dearth of opportunity among the bottom 60% and growing. If we lived in a society where opportunity was spread more evenly across the board, we would likely see human productivity sky-rocket since millions would be able to work when they had no opportunity before.

I know cause I live with few opportunities. I don't know why you wish to prevent opportunities from existing for me when I am capable of being as productive as any rich billionaire, the only difference is I wouldn't be able to sell 3 companies and buy 2 and make a cool 800M.

 

[dblack]

I'm arguing for sane justice and basics concepts of free society. The idea that people should be prevented from being 'too wealthy' is about as rational as saying that they should be prevented from being too popular or too talented.

You act like anyone who has succeeded has come to that on their own terms and thus deserve every penny.

Hah.... ok. I have very little wealth actually. It would be wasted on me. I'm terrible at managing money, or overseeing large projects.

You're preoccupied with wealth as something people 'deserve', and I don't look at it that way. People don't 'deserve' wealth any more than they deserve intelligence, talent, or good health. In a free society, wealth is something we entrust to people who use it in ways we approve of.

It seems to me that what you are opposed to isn't so much illicitly gained wealth, but economic freedom. Otherwise, your efforts would be focused on identifying how some people are cheating and preventing it. Instead, you seem committed to the idea that economic power should be distributed by the state, rather than by the voluntary choices of individuals.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

More on/off, black/white thinking here, I see.

CAn you people ever get your tiny all or nothing heads around the possibility that that SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?

Apparently not.

Some capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

Too much money in the supply side is NOT good for capitalism.

For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good for a while,. perhaps, but for capitalISM?

Not so good.

Educate yourselves, citizens.

Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.

Your wailing, whining, grunting, inarticulate opposition to "income inequality" amounts to "NOT FAIRSIES!"

Unless you guys (at long last) are willing to state (in nice clear declarative straightforward sentences) precisely what it is you claim is the "solution" to the "problem," then all you say is of exactly no value at all.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The evil accusation subtracts from the substantive argument. No doubt exploitation goes on but its hard to say whose responsible directly since smart attorneys have insulated everyone. Just look at the big bankers walking free today. Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.

But you act like there needs to be detailed plans. This is simply another stumbling block. How did we create the society we live in today? Total foresight? HA!

This is the new policies and refreshing ideas we need in goverment and the private sector: unity and solidarity. Yet all you wish to do is cause strife on the same team, but you can't recognize you agree because you're too focused on bashing liberals and anything remotely close to non-Rep. ideas.

NO ONE CARES about the Dem v Rep when it comes to inequality. Both sides support the same basic policies, only differing on WEDGE issues that distract goof balls like yourself. Its hackneyed and a waste of time. Our real solutions do not involve Dems or Reps in office nor the ones waiting in the wing for a chance at lavish campaign contributions. Most of our congress is millionaires. Public servants are not suppose to be among the richest in society...are they?

With common sense approach to narrowing income, education and opportunity inequality we can create a more productive society--it's a basic fact: the better off the workers are the more likely they will serve their job with gusto rather than regret and misery). There will always be trouble afoot in human society (so no absolutely perfect Utopia) but the question is can we solve problems that are a threat to us? Currently we could not and are not. I'd hope the outrageous utopian vision of genuine representation and ability to ACT on behalf of the people isn't too much for you. Perhaps you're too use to the slop n' vote portrayed by mass media as real Democracy to notice your voice means about as much as a Jack-O-Lantern. Whether Rep. or Dem we are electing the same corporate interests. Obama has accepted billions in corporate money and has appointed tons of CEOs like Mr. Immelt of GE to head important economic councils. What a joke! Such practices are standard of Republicans (and Democrats) and fly in the face of genuine representation.

I propose the following two measures as guiding principles for erecting a satisfactory government (not utopian) so we can create general satisfaction among us, the people (hint: it doesn't involve making cheap shit cheaper, it involves improving the quality of life and allowing citizens to genuinely participate in a democracy):

7 Principles of Good Governance

See Chuck Feeney. He has given most of his 6 Billion away.

For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org

Kshama is evidently retarded.

Well, you did note that she is a "socialist" so i suppose it is redundant.

 

[RKMBrown]

Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.

Trickle-down theory doesn't work.

Record profits? ROFL link?

 

[gnarlylove]

I must have misread your post. Earning and deserving mean the same, I think. So my point is that no income is 100% earned, it is a culmination of a life and all those interactions that shaped it. Taxes make sense to address this but we know it has flaws as it is currently. We can do better.

You seem to think there should be no cap on individual prosperity. While I think people should be free to pursue there private aims (wealth accumulation, tons of sex, plethora of beatnik experience etc) as long as these personal projects doesn't harm others--the classic libertarian principle. Of course defining harm can be challenging but I think we know harm when we feel it ourselves so...

Richard Rorty elaborates on this magnificently. He advocates us to "drop the demand for a theory which unifies the public and private... [and] treat the demands of self-creation and of human solidarity as equally valid, yet forever incommensurable." Hence, he calls himself a liberal ironist and defines it thusly:

I borrow my definition of "liberal from Judith Skhlar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. I use "ironist" to name the sort of person who faces up to the contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and desires--someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance. Liberal ironists are people who include among these ungroundable desires their own hope that suffering will be diminished, that the humiliation of human beings by other human beings may cease.

Basically all our beliefs come from our conditions. No belief is eternal or refers to beyond our conditions (though we may claim such). So any belief may or may not conflict with the public good. When it does we ought to investigate how essential our conditional belief is. The belief that cruelty is wrong is just another ungrounded conditional belief but iif we saw it in operation we would see the blossoming of humanity. I think our personal whims and projects make sense to set aside WHEN they conflict with harming another human being. Of course this should be decided case by case but this is a general rule of thumb.

Moreover, I think Americans would be benefit greatly from education in spirituality and ethics in addition to the normal school curriculum. I'm not saying teach biblical creation, I'm merely noting how spiritual perspectives enhance the rest of life. To ignore our fellow man as having to pick himself up by his bootstraps may be economically sound but misses the mark as humans. We are far more than economics, our wealth or our ideas. Personally I am a Taoist (after having been a devout Christian, devout hedonist among other lifestyles) and a central teaching is the idea that humans cannot visibly see the ultimate truth (see verse 14 and 21 of the Tao Teh Ching). So people who claim they are right and others are wrong is based on flimsy conditionals, not some ultimate perception they have and we lack. However, Taoism also teaches one can harmonize with The Way (thru meditation etc.) and in so doing live a rich and peaceful life.

As for state control, my signature below addresses your accusation. However, we must work with what we've got, and what we've got is a lotta state control. So in order to work within the system, one must pass common sense legislation (and undo others) to close the gap of education and opportunity. Once a certain air of equality is reached, I think it might be appropriate to discuss alternatives to the state but few are willing to listen. As it stands private corps. dominate domestic affairs with the gov't coming in a close second. So while my aim is ultimately a free society governed solely by our own internal principles, we must use what is in place to affect change. This is not a contradiction since one may birth the other.

 

[gnarlylove]

Sawant is an economics professor. I won't accuse you of being retarded but now I get why you complained about my use of 12th grade HS words: it didn't fit the typical Democrat reply and so your reply template (Call Dems names and assert your Rep. dominance) was harder to fit. But you still did it! WAY TO GO!

It takes little thinking to realize her efforts to narrow the gap between those who have succeeded and those struggling to make are highly welcomed. She won her election and that demonstrates her policy is desirable. She defeated a 16 year incumbent and received 29% of the vote (~22,000 votes), an unprecedented margin of victory for a socialist in our two party system.

And believe it or not, Socialist is not defined as "Wrong" or "Satan's policy." But because you have refuse to use your brain and read what socialism is in textbooks, you maintain such ignoble beliefs that damage the integrity of debate.

You can only understand yourself in juxtaposition to your enemies. That's why the two party system works so well for you: you don't have to think, you can simply rely on the Us v Them dichotomy to define your core identity. You can just call your opponents names in a sweeping blanket statements and feel like you are 100% accurate and many low-grade thinkers salute you! You feel validated!

Turns out, reality is not black and white like you make it. Learning of Socialism is more than you can handle so you stick to stupid one-liners. You're fine to remain bigotted and glued to FOX news accepting everything you hear on TV (even when they say "Fair and Balanced"). Neither I nor the cops are going to arrest you for such patently false claims so you will NEVER change your attitudes. The only time you would change your attitudes is if someone held a gun to your head and I doubt it then. Otherwise, you stick to political beliefs you adopted at 14 from your parents and have hardly refined them as you've aged into your mid 40s. You are one smart cookie! I wish life was as simple as you make it, but I stopped being so naive around 22.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Because the petty little know nothing gnarlyload has rejected Capitalism and has come to adore socialism, he thinks the entire matter is settled. If you disagree with HIM, then by golly you must be ignorant.



gnarlyload is unlikely to appreciate how ironic his posts are in light of his own muddled thinking.

 

[gnarlylove]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.

 

[dblack]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

I have no objection to socialism as an organizing principle. Community co-ops, communes, employee owned businesses, etc... can be attractive alternatives to private ownership for many ventures. What I have a problem with is coercing participation in such projects. To the extent that the socialist ideal can be pursued while still respecting individual liberty, I'm all for it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

I have no objection to socialism as an organizing principle. Community co-ops, communes, employee owned businesses, etc... can be attractive alternatives to private ownership for many ventures. What I have a problem with is coercing participation in such projects. To the extent that the socialist ideal can be pursued while still respecting individual liberty, I'm all for it.

The problem with most socialist arrangements is they almost always degrade into a system where a small portion of the group does all the work for a larger portion of the group that just sit back and reap the all the benefits provided by the labor.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.

No. Try to pay attention. I don't "conceptualize" in terms of "Republican" or anti-Republican. Hell. I used to be a Republican until I dumped them for being effectively no better in the long term than the damn liberal Democratics.

And I don't really care if you are a full fledged adoring Socialist, a weak capitalist with socialist inclinations or a ******* card carrying Communist Party loyalist.

What I ASKED you, and what you persist in NOT addressing, isn't really all that difficult to answer. So try ANSWERING it this time.

You harbor serious misgivings about wealth "disparity" (or income "disparity" which is not the same thing).

Ok. I don't care, but let's go with that.

The QUESTION is WHAT, be precise here, WHAT do you propose we DO about it?