Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[KevinWestern]

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.

That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy ****, tsk tsk.

**** you, stupid Commie.

94%?? Is he crazy, lol.

94%!!?

 

[Ropey]

Of course he's crazy. There are those who will never be able to compete at the lower money making levels, let alone the top money making levels.

There will always be a divide, just like there's a divide between the best scholars and those who are just not as capable.

Even those who are born into money only had the advantages of being born into it. The original makers of the money were and are the self made.

94%?

 

[Andylusion]

Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.

Trickle-down theory doesn't work.

First off, unemployment has nothing to do with record profits. Unemployment has to do with labor being unprofitable to hire. When you increase the minimum wage, and increase the taxes, and increase the cost of labor with health care mandates and regulations, logically.... the amount of labor you purchase will be lower.

In any other situation, you would grasp this instinctively. If the government passed a $10 tax on coke, and buying coke required you to pay a pop can disposal fee of $10, and the Coke company increased the price per can to $10. So it cost you $30 instead of 50¢ to buy one can of pop.... obviously the amount of coke you would buy, would drastically decrease.

Yet this basic logic, is apparently lost when it comes to employment. Employment is people buying labor. When you increase the cost of labor, ....dur..... the amount of labor bought goes down.

Further, very often driving up costs, will in fact result in higher profits. A lot of people don't grasp this.

Let's say that you have a town with 10 fast food joints. Now let's say that you increase regulations, taxes, and the minimum wage.

The three big chain joints, they have the money to afford higher wages, and expensive regulations, and taxes. The smaller, startup joints, or independent joints, they don't have the resources of a Wendy's McDonald's type place, to afford all these things. So they close down. Sure enough in a matter of a year or two, only 3 fast food joints remain, and all the other shops close down.

Now with less competition, they can charge higher and higher prices, resulting in higher and higher profits.

Take McDonald's. They replaced all their cashiers in Europe, with Kiosks. Small independent shops, don't have the resources to do that. Thus McDonald's can make record profits, while having fewer employed people, and less competition.... all thanks to leftists pushing for free health care, high taxes, and high minimum wages.

Second, trickle down is how everything works. As in.... EVERYTHING.

Saying trickle down doesn't work, is like saying gravity doesn't work.

Everything trickles down. It never trickles up. Let's say that we all get together, and decide we want to build a car.

First you pay a designer to come up with the designs, then pay engineers to design the parts, then pay suppliers to make those parts, then pay to have a building, and pay for the equipment, pay for the tools, and then pay to have employees come put everything together, and pay to have all the stuff and materials, and tools and equipment delivered to our building, then pay to have people install everything, and then when we have some finish product, pay to have it delivered to the dealerships, and pay people to sell the cars.

All of that expense has to happen before a single customer, pays for a single product. So all of us get together, and we're going to trickle up an automobile. Who is going to buy the building? Whose going to pay the electric bill? Whose going to pay the designers and engineers? Whose buying all the tools?

Millions of dollars worth of stuff needs bought, and you think 'trickle down' doesn't work?

Every job in existence, is proof trickle down works. Every bit of wealth in the country is proof trickle down works.

WalMart sold $350 Billion dollars worth of wealth last year. The citizens of this country have $350 Billion in wealth, because of Walmart. Walmart creates 2.2 Million jobs. Walmart trickled down 2.2 million employed people.

And you want to tell me trickle down doesn't work? Bull. In fact, trickle down works in every economic system the world over. Even in socialist systems, everything works from Trickle down. The China National Oil Company, state owned, has a chairman Zhou Jiping, appointed by the government, who earned a cool $970 Thousand dollars a year, and unlike American CEOs, that's all cold hard cash. And talk about the gap between the rich and the poor, the *AVERAGE* income in China today is $2,000 a year.

So even in socialized system, you still have the rich wealthy trickling down jobs and wealth to the rest of society. The only difference is, to be CEO in a socialized system, it doesn't matter what you do, or how you work, or what skills you have, or anything. All that matters in a socialized system, is that you have favor from the government which appoints you CEO. Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae. Same deal.

In a capitalist system, you can be a hill billy drunk guy, and start whittling duck callers, and end up a multimillionaire with your own TV show. But everything is trickle down.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, as it's practiced in the US.

Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary. Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.

Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?

So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you? So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?

See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.

But employment is the same thing. You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either. That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.

I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company. He spent four years working while going to school. He earned a degree in engineering. He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company. Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business. Now he's CEO of the business. He is there at 7 AM every morning. He leaves at 6 PM every night. He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.

He works his butt off. Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'? Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company? Bull. You have no right period. None!

And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either. And don't lie and say you would. You wouldn't. I know better.

Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business. Bull crap.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy ****, tsk tsk.

**** you, stupid Commie.

94%?? Is he crazy, lol.

94%!!?

He is crazy. And stupid.

Working the deep fryer has gone to his head.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Great political move. However, two problems. First, even if she cuts her salary to that amount, still won't stop her from getting numerous kick backs. Bill Clinton was hired on the board of directors for a company he never actually visited. Never been to it, never sat in on a board meeting, never did any work of any kind... yet he was paid over hundred thousand, as a board member.

Being in government, in and of itself, allows you all kinds of opportunities. Book deals, for books that never sold and such.

So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much. I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.

Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good. Stalin was notably not corrupt. He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died. That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.

 

[Andylusion]

So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?

"Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012

What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........ I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding. But for sure, he's not a "parasite". You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.

 

[Andylusion]

The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information.

The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.

F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.

There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.

Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.

MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.

Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities. That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.

So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information. That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.

Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.

Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating. You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact. It's not up for you to debate. This is in fact what happened. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.

That a fact dude. You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened. "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!" Dur.... doesn't matter. That's what happened! "BUT BUT!" Dude.... this is established historical fact. It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.

Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.

Period. Stop arguing against established fact. You lose. You can't change the facts.

Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything. The standard was lowered. Period. Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't. There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan. Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate. That's it. Game over. It's now sub-prime. Period.

The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

No, sorry. You fail at logic. They lowered the standard. The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it. That changed the standard.

You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans. Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans. That's what Alt-A is.

And no. You are wrong about the GSA. It had nothing to do with risk. And it didn't play a part in the bailouts. You are just making up stuff now.

 

[Mojo2]

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."

Our capitalist system of wealth creation is the alternative to what Obama observed growing up abroad, of successful business being only possible through theft.

Same attitude as in Europe, says Dinesh D'Souza.

 

[dblack]

The capitalist class, who own the means of production have become increasingly elite and astute at propaganda (controlling the mass media). Each year with more mergers and acquisitions this small elite group grow in political and global control, having convinced most of us that we that there is no other way to operate a society and we must rely on them for sustenance and freedom.

I don't doubt the majority favors the capitalist class, they bring such treats to those who can afford it. But the fact is a growing minority of the majority (i.e. the working class) are expressing our dissatisfaction with the way the capitalist class executes its power and indeed, the power they wield is absolutely corrupting. I know many of you disagree but I strongly believe no human should go without food when there is enough kilo calories to feed every single person (and there is, see Josette Sheeran work as UN Executive Director). This is a warfare against humanity, against our very own kind over profit.

Profit is not more valuable than life and to withhold food preventing proper human development to continue exploiting cheap labor is making profits more appealing than human life. To those of us with empathy, we say **** THAT! Human life is in most cases more valuable than profit but as far as the capitalist class is concerned, they are ignoring this truth in order to continue global exploitation and we go along with them every step of the way.

What are you arguing for here in terms of policy? You seem to be making the case for a social safety net, which is a different issue than income inequality.

 

[gnarlylove]

So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much. I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.

Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good. Stalin was notably not corrupt. He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died. That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.

It's clear you are an antagonist. She donated that money to worker related causes. By saying Stalin was not corrupt and evoking such ignorant comparisons, you remove yourself from serious discussion and enter the realm of jokes and farts. It's a politically charged ignoble analogy that lacks any basis in reality. I know you believe it but it's just apples and oranges, it has not effect other than to incite fear and anger by comparing her to Stalin.

 

[freedombecki]

So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much. I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.

Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good. Stalin was notably not corrupt. He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died. That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.

It's clear you are an antagonist. She donated that money to worker related causes. By saying Stalin was not corrupt and evoking such ignorant comparisons, you remove yourself from serious discussion and enter the realm of jokes and farts. It's a politically charged ignoble analogy that lacks any basis in reality. I know you believe it but it's just apples and oranges, it has not effect other than to incite fear and anger by comparing her to Stalin.

You should not speak until spoken to.

 

[gnarlylove]

What are you arguing for here in terms of policy? You seem to be making the case for a social safety net, which is a different issue than income inequality.

I advocate for policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit. Instead we see a system that makes humans expendable and replaceable. This means our primary value is to be a worker and machine. Why do you think selling one's time and labor for survival is freedom? We are brothers, fathers, family members and lovers second or third at best.

Economics is not a real thing. It's a helpful description of the monetary system and little more. Thinking of a social safety net or an economy as a real, concrete thing is simply a fallacy. See reification. So to think we cannot create a different set of rules is to think humans are subservient to our own creations, and we are if we act like we are. I'm not claiming you commit this fallacy, we just need to be careful how we think about this.

 

[dblack]

What are you arguing for here in terms of policy? You seem to be making the case for a social safety net, which is a different issue than income inequality.

I advocate for policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit. Instead we see a system that makes humans expendable and replaceable. This means our primary value is to be a worker and machine. Why do you think selling one's time and labor for survival is freedom? We are brothers, fathers, family members and lovers second or third at best.

Economics is not a real thing. It's a helpful description of the monetary system and little more. Thinking of a social safety net or an economy as a real, concrete thing is simply a fallacy. See reification. So to think we cannot create a different set of rules is to think humans are subservient to our own creations, and we are if we act like we are. I'm not claiming you commit this fallacy, we just need to be careful how we think about this.

What are you arguing for in terms of policy?

 

[gnarlylove]

Are you asking me to write a Bill for the Congress or do you just not wish to participate in fruitful discussion? If you have such an interest in understanding it in terms of some H.Res Bill then you should be smart enough to glean some policy changes from what I've said if it matters so much you have to ask it repeatedly...the point I'm making is the system is fundamentally flawed. We know so because it's destroying our resources and cannot continue at current pace.

Picking out a singular policy tends to loose attention on this fact. It allows us to operate from our fundamentally flawed concepts and arguing which fundamentally flawed option is right. This breeds division and avoids the important issue that we are operating from flawed premises of how society should proceed. Debt and compounded interest is breaking the world and it's made up! By 2060, S&P says 60% of the countries worldwide will be bankrupt resulting in real human suffering. But what for? Because we held on to the notion of debt as a real thing and used it to oppress our fellow man without cause except to get richer, not for need but out of greed.

The subtle essence of the universe does nothing,
yet leaves nothing undone.

If powerful men and women
could center themselves in it,
the whole world would be transformed
by itself, in its natural rhythms.

When life is simple,
pretenses fall away;
our essential nature shines through.

When there is no desire,
all things are at peace
and the world will straighten itself.
When there is silence,
one finds the anchor of the universe within oneself.

Tao verse 37

 

[dblack]

Are you asking me to write a Bill for the Congress or do you just not wish to participate in fruitful discussion?

I'm merely trying to gain some clarity on the views you're expressing. "Policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit" is fairly vague. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd disagree. But what of our current laws and policies conflict with that? I have my own set of complaints about the status quo, but I'm pretty sure they're quite different than yours, even though we're recognizing many of the same problems.

I'm not asking your for a comprehensive legislative proposal - just some concrete examples of what you'd like to see changed, or at least a general idea of how you think government should involve itself in our economic activities.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?

They don't even see that while they complain about "income inequality", even they are benefitting from capitalism. It's almost as if they wish the poor were in abject poverty just so the rich don't advance either. I have visited West Africa and I know that capitalism has created a situation where the poor here are like kings compared to the middle class in Ghana. It wasn't socialism that led us to live the lives we have and socialism won't keep us from declining if they succeed in foisting it on us as a way of life.

Warlords practice a flavor of capitalism without representation or legal recourse.

Ignorant or a liar?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2-yRBGfuGU]Oingo Boingo - 'Capitalism' - Occupy Wall Street Edition - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bayoubill]

Oingo Boingo - 'Capitalism' - Occupy Wall Street Edition - YouTube

tickled to see that young-'n-dumbfuckism is alive and well more'n 40 years after I grew outta it...

 

[Andylusion]

So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much. I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.

Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good. Stalin was notably not corrupt. He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died. That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.

It's clear you are an antagonist. She donated that money to worker related causes. By saying Stalin was not corrupt and evoking such ignorant comparisons, you remove yourself from serious discussion and enter the realm of jokes and farts. It's a politically charged ignoble analogy that lacks any basis in reality. I know you believe it but it's just apples and oranges, it has not effect other than to incite fear and anger by comparing her to Stalin.

When I ever care in any way, what you think of me, I'll let you know. Otherwise, you would wise to assume that I don't give a crap about your personal opinion of me.

Back to the topic.... I don't know, or personally care if Kshama Sawant is wonderful and perfect or not.

She's not my politician.

All I know is, I've heard this song and dance many many times, by many many politicians. They all tend to start off great, and later end up just like any other politician once in office.

Now if she turns out wonderful in the long haul... great!

My only other point was, I think it is a mistake to assume that merely the lack of corruption automatically yields good results. No, it does not. You can have the most pure motives in the worlds in giving out loans to low and moderate income people, and still end up with defaults and crash.

The point wasn't to say that Kshama Sawant is Stalin. The only people who would assume that from my post, are ignorant people with weak arguments, that need to erect a red herring to attack.

My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all. That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.

Sawant could be entirely pure, and if she supports bad policies, they will have bad results, no matter how honest pure and uncorrupted she is.