Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What happened when the Republicans were in control under bush?

you got in control confused with in office. If Bush had been in control he would have privatized Social Security, heath care , and education.
Making sense now??

 

[ShackledNation]

Jefferson was not a Republican.

Republican in 1792 were identical to Republicans today:

WIKI: The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790's, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights.

That doesn't sound like what the Republican party is doing. Maybe what some are saying, but not what the establishment is actually doing. Jefferson would be against the wars, because he was a noninterventionist. The Republicans now are a bunch of neoconservatives.

5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34

Is that supposed to prove something? You are listing the names of parties, that is all. Those names say nothing about what was believed at the time. Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that there have been massive transformations to the parties throughout American history, whether or not the name is the same is completely irrelevant.

"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's].

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


"In referring to political parties I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


-During a conciliatory moment at his Inauguration Jefferson said: "today we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." (referring to the two majors parties at the time)
We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
- When Jefferson won the election of 1800 the National Gazette headline was, "Complete triumph of Republican firmness over the "obstinacy" of the Aristocrats"! ( what Republicans called big government Federalists)

Wow. Either you missed the point, or you conflate the name of a party with the ideology of the party.

The Republican party under Jefferson is not even close to the Republican party today. This is not even disputable. The modern Republican party was founded in 1854.

All you have proven is that the party of Jefferson often was called the Republican party. But I was never arguing about what the party was called. I was arguing about ideology. And anyone who has even the most simplistic understanding of history would tell you the party of Jefferson is totally different than modern Republicans. Jefferson is more similar to strands of libertarianism than republicanism.

 

[ShackledNation]

What happened when the Republicans were in control under bush?

you got in control confused with in office. If Bush had been in control he would have privatized Social Security, heath care , and education.
Making sense now??

Bush signed into law the centralization of education known as No Child Left Behind WHICH THE REPUBLICANS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. In fact, the Bush administration proposed the law! You have your facts totally wrong. If he wanted to privatize education, he would have pushed for it.

It seems you have fallen pray to believing rhetoric and ignoring actions. Actions speak far louder than words in the realm of politics. Believing otherwise is literally dangerous.

The fact is that the Republican and Democratic political parties are both parties of big government. Members of the party may support limited government, but the party establishments absolutely do not. You are a sheep if you "think" otherwise.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism detests competition.

capitalism is a concept, not a person so it cant detest anything.

If it could somehow detest competition and eliminate it then it would be eliminating itself since it is not capitalism without competiton? See why we are 100% that a liberal will have no brains.

Capitalism is a conceit that fascists and their useful idiots confuse with competition.
See where you fit in?

 

[georgephillip]

What did today's private capitalists contribute to the societies of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and North Korea that didn't come at the expense of millions of innocent lives?

for example, North Korea is liberal communist not capitalist. Would you like to bet $10,000 or run away admitting that you are a liberal fool? sorry

Let's make it $1 for every Korean civilian killed by heroic capitalists north of the 38th parallel between June 1950 and July 1953? How many US liberals have the North Korean fascists killed, Lamb?

 

[georgephillip]

Gates didn't contribute the PC to society until after society did all the heavy lifting by funding ARPANET. Gates and other parasites piggy-backed their way to Davos on the taxpayer dime.

dear, the taxpayer could have paid taxes or used the money to fund Microsoft's next innovation. Do you assume money becomes magical after the government taxes it away and dies in private hands?

THe governemnt is far more likely to produce Solyndras because they have professional bureaucrats spending others peoples money, obviously. In the private sector you spend and lose your own money.
A child can grasp this, just not a liberal.

While most fascists are far too facile to realize that without government there is no Microsoft or money.
Ask the nearest child (or liberal) for help if you're still confused about Wall Street's (conservative) magic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While most fascists are far too facile to realize that without government there is no Microsoft or money.

dear, there have been 1000's of governments over 1000's of years but no Microsoft until Bill Gates. See why we are positive a liberal can't think?

Ask the nearest child (or liberal) for help if you're still confused about Wall Street's (conservative) magic.

what??? Can you put that in English and use examples?? IT makes no sense at all. How old are you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let's make it $1 for every Korean civilian killed by heroic capitalists north of the 38th parallel between June 1950 and July 1953?

you said North Korea was capitalist; I said I'd bet 10,000 it was communist;you changed the subject to the Korean war? You don't write well enough to be here or think well enough. Sorry

How many US liberals have the North Korean fascists killed, Lamb?

no but if no one disagrees why did you bring it up?? Do you have any idea what subject you are on??? Can you say what your subject is??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalism is a conceit that fascists and their useful idiots confuse with competition.
See where you fit in?

what on earth are you trying to say?? Please think before you write and use examples.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush signed into law the centralization of education known as No Child Left Behind WHICH THE REPUBLICANS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. In fact, the Bush administration proposed the law! You have your facts totally wrong. If he wanted to privatize education, he would have pushed for it.

no he wouldn't!!! He got killed for pushing Social Security. Newt got killed for pushing his Balanced Budget Amendment. In politics independents decide elections so everyone is pushed to the middle.
If you want purity look to libertarians who are 100% impotent and so 100% irrelevent.

It seems you have fallen pray to believing rhetoric and ignoring actions. Actions speak far louder than words in the realm of politics. Believing otherwise is literally dangerous.

do you understand now?

The fact is that the Republican and Democratic political parties are both parties of big government.

except that Republicans have introduced 30 BBA's since Jefferson while Democrats have killed every one of them. NOw you understand why Jefferson, Paul, Newt, Grover, and Tea Party are Republican, not Democratic!! This is painfully obvious.

Members of the party may support limited government, but the party establishments absolutely do not. You are a sheep if you "think" otherwise.

The politically savy establishment instantly supports the most libertarian policies that can be passed. This helps you understand why Republicans have appointed 4 ultra conservative judges to the Supreme Court while libertarians have done less than nothing.

 

[itfitzme]

Ask the nearest child (or liberal) for help if you're still confused about Wall Street's (conservative) magic.

Two things come to mind.

Over the past decades, it was pretty obvious that Microsoft had a technique. Every year, a company like the creators of WordPerfect, would come up with a new and innovative addition to their software. The next year, Microsoft would copy their creation and add it to their software package. The dominance of Microsoft has not been their marvelous ability at inventiveness. Microsoft has enjoyed what is called a natural monopoly. When a company, that I was working for, was trying to decide what desktop computers and software to deploy through out the departments, the choice was obvious. The choice was simply the one that had the market dominance. Once Microsoft gained sufficient market share, every company had to use it. Otherwise, they couldn't function in communicating with suppliers and customers.

The second thing that comes to mind is the stock market.

The literal translation for "stock" as in "stock market" is "guessing paper".

The idea of an IPO is to sell partial ownership in a company so that it can raise capital to invest in expansion and leverage into the remaining untapped market demand.

Once beyond the IPO, the purchase and sale of stock has nothing to do with the original company except in the income produced from the dividends or in the returns obtained by selling the stock.

The majority of the gains from the stock market have nothing to do with the functioning of the economy. This is, of course, why the sale and purchase of stock isn't part of the GDP.

The stock market remains little more then a form of gambling. And, in fact, it has been shown repeatedly that stock brokers performance is little more then blind luck, good or bad.

Stock prices are purely psychological in nature with no little underlying economic causality. An excellent example is the stock market performance during and after the December 2007 recession and the performance that occurred when the S&P downgraded the US credit rating to AA+.

Over the period of time from 2005 through 2010, the correlation between the GDP and the DJI was .50. In terms of R^2 value, that is 25% or 25% of the variability in the stock market is accounted for by the GDP. 75% of the variability in the DJI has nothing to do with the GDP or the actual performance of the companies. The 25%, is little more than stock market investors perception of the economy, not the actual economy. In theory, it is suppose to be based on valuation of the company, the company value divided by the number of stocks outstanding. In reality, it's not. In reality, it is just "Wall Street Magic" and day traders using the magic of technical analysis.

During the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, when the S&P downgraded the US credit rating to AA+, the DJI dropped. It then began to climb once again. What is more interesting is what happened to the day to day variability. The standard deviation of the % change in prices went from 0.9% before, to 2.3% after. Looking the graph below, the variability can be seen to dampen out over time. Nothing in the performance of the economy changed. The change was purely psychological.

In English, the stock market has little to do with anything except the stock market. The stock market has nothing to do with the fundamentals of capitalism, and the free market that Adam Smith described, in it's ability to successfully redistribute scarce resources or create real wealth.

If anything can be described as simply moving money around and doing nothing, it would be the stock market. The stock market, like the price of gold, is just one big bubble. And it is unfortunate that so many retirement funds rely on it.

The graph below shows the stock market % change compared to the GDP % change.

The graph below shows the variability in the DJI stock market prices.

 

[georgephillip]

Let's make it $1 for every Korean civilian killed by heroic capitalists north of the 38th parallel between June 1950 and July 1953?

you said North Korea was capitalist; I said I'd bet 10,000 it was communist;you changed the subject to the Korean war? You don't write well enough to be here or think well enough. Sorry

How many US liberals have the North Korean fascists killed, Lamb?

no but if no one disagrees why did you bring it up?? Do you have any idea what subject you are on??? Can you say what your subject is??

Surely you can point out where I said North Korea was capitalist?
Must be even more difficult for Republicans to keep their lies straight in election years.
Can you remember the last time your written words accurately reflected what passes for your thoughts?

 

[georgephillip]

Ask the nearest child (or liberal) for help if you're still confused about Wall Street's (conservative) magic.

Two things come to mind.

Over the past decades, it was pretty obvious that Microsoft had a technique. Every year, a company like the creators of WordPerfect, would come up with a new and innovative addition to their software. The next year, Microsoft would copy their creation and add it to their software package. The dominance of Microsoft has not been their marvelous ability at inventiveness. Microsoft has enjoyed what is called a natural monopoly. When a company, that I was working for, was trying to decide what desktop computers and software to deploy through out the departments, the choice was obvious. The choice was simply the one that had the market dominance. Once Microsoft gained sufficient market share, every company had to use it. Otherwise, they couldn't function in communicating with suppliers and customers.

The second thing that comes to mind is the stock market.

The literal translation for "stock" as in "stock market" is "guessing paper".

The idea of an IPO is to sell partial ownership in a company so that it can raise capital to invest in expansion and leverage into the remaining untapped market demand.

Once beyond the IPO, the purchase and sale of stock has nothing to do with the original company except in the income produced from the dividends or in the returns obtained by selling the stock.

The majority of the gains from the stock market have nothing to do with the functioning of the economy. This is, of course, why the sale and purchase of stock isn't part of the GDP.

The stock market remains little more then a form of gambling. And, in fact, it has been shown repeatedly that stock brokers performance is little more then blind luck, good or bad.

Stock prices are purely psychological in nature with no little underlying economic causality. An excellent example is the stock market performance during and after the December 2007 recession and the performance that occurred when the S&P downgraded the US credit rating to AA+.

Over the period of time from 2005 through 2010, the correlation between the GDP and the DJI was .50. In terms of R^2 value, that is 25% or 25% of the variability in the stock market is accounted for by the GDP. 75% of the variability in the DJI has nothing to do with the GDP or the actual performance of the companies. The 25%, is little more than stock market investors perception of the economy, not the actual economy. In theory, it is suppose to be based on valuation of the company, the company value divided by the number of stocks outstanding. In reality, it's not. In reality, it is just "Wall Street Magic" and day traders using the magic of technical analysis.

During the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, when the S&P downgraded the US credit rating to AA+, the DJI dropped. It then began to climb once again. What is more interesting is what happened to the day to day variability. The standard deviation of the % change in prices went from 0.9% before, to 2.3% after. Looking the graph below, the variability can be seen to dampen out over time. Nothing in the performance of the economy changed. The change was purely psychological.

In English, the stock market has little to do with anything except the stock market. The stock market has nothing to do with the fundamentals of capitalism, and the free market that Adam Smith described, in it's ability to successfully redistribute scarce resources or create real wealth.

If anything can be described as simply moving money around and doing nothing, it would be the stock market. The stock market, like the price of gold, is just one big bubble. And it is unfortunate that so many retirement funds rely on it.

The graph below shows the stock market % change compared to the GDP % change.

The graph below shows the variability in the DJI stock market prices.

Your understanding of the stock market far exceeds my own.
I've had my doubts about its "free market" aspects since the Flash Crash, at least.
Can you speculate on how a market free of rentier influence like the one Smith envisioned would function without stock market bubbles?
What investment alternatives currently exist for retirement funds?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Surely you can point out where I said North Korea was capitalist?
Must be even more difficult for Republicans to keep their lies straight in election years.
Can you remember the last time your written words accurately reflected what passes for your thoughts?

can you say what liberalism is and why you are a liberal. This is the question the voting booth asks and the question that shapes our future. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Two things come to mind.

Over the past decades, it was pretty obvious that Microsoft had a technique.

Yes they fell asleep like most companies do in a free market once they gain a significant market share. They slept while Google Facebook Twitter Apple Yahoo and others took what was right under their noses. Indeed this is the way freedom works. Any now you know too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The stock market has nothing to do with the fundamentals of capitalism, and the free market that Adam Smith described, in it's ability to successfully redistribute scarce resources or create real wealth.

here are the fundamentals for you. Apple is the most valuable with products like Mac Ipad Iphone Ipod because it has the potential to make the most profits while Nokia and others are far less valuable.

If we wanted to own Nokia more than Appple we would probably lose principle and earnings by investing in the worst rather than the best companies. We'd have a depression and all be very very poor.
So you see it make sense to invest where profits are high rather than low.

 

[georgephillip]

Surely you can point out where I said North Korea was capitalist?
Must be even more difficult for Republicans to keep their lies straight in election years.
Can you remember the last time your written words accurately reflected what passes for your thoughts?

can you say what liberalism is and why you are a liberal. This is the question the voting booth asks and the question that shapes our future. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?

Imho, liberalism more closely follows the Golden Rule in the sense of doing onto others as you would be done, while conservatism believes he who owns the most gold makes the rules. Liberals try to do the moral and right things not because they fear the "God of the Collection Plate's" punishment in the hereafter but because it is the moral and proper way to live.

Can you tell me when you expect conservatives to stop supporting those who profit the most from eternal war and endless debt?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

while conservatism believes he who owns the most gold makes the rules.

of course that is psychotic idiocy. Can you provide evidence of that gold idiocy? Actually, conservatives believe as our Founders did in freedom from liberal government. Welcome to your first lesson in American History. You have to know what conservatism is before you can oppose it.

Liberals try to do the moral and right things

I see, so liberals are morally superior because they support welfare? Is that your best example of moral superiority? Do you have another

not because they fear the "God of the Collection Plate's" punishment in the hereafter but because it is the moral and proper way to live.

so then what is the best example of a liberals moral superiority. If you are superior you must have a reason or admit to being a morality bigot. Are you a bigot?

Can you tell me when you expect conservatives to stop supporting those who profit the most from eternal war and endless debt?

BO continues the same wars and is about to start another. Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?

 

[Dr Grump]

"...you read ideological friendly books."
Actually, I read books on both sides, but am able to discriminate between correct conclusions, and the kind of stuff you put on bumper stickers.

/QUOTE]

And, gee, let us guess what idealology has the 'correct' conclusions in your eyes...

 

[georgephillip]

Surely you're not facile enough to confuse BO with a liberal?
If so, kindly explain his continued support for Honduran fascists who overthrew a democratically elected president?