AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

You support extreme economic inequality as a positive force in China. I do not. You believe that same inequality here is acceptable. I do not. We disagree.

 

There are no guns involved here. But I do think government should pass laws requiring large companies & corporations contribute more of their profits toward establishing & supporting social programs to help those incapable of providing the basic necessities of life for themselves. That's a small burden for those capitalist companies, but a huge benefit for the general public & society at large. You will defend & protect the businesses against the needy. But I, as usual, disagree.

 

Answer the question. Prove that class mobility surged after the Regan tax cuts. I know being called on to justify your claims is inconvienient but perhaps you should learn not to make things up.

 

Nope. Haven't seen any proposal from him for total immigration control, other than vague statements with absolutly zero specifics. But perhaps you can provide a link to his dtailed plan for a total renovation.

And by the way even Trump isn't calling for a wall not to mention one that covers the entire border.

 

China is still a totalitarian government that severely limits human rights. Economics isn't all there is to be concerned about.

 

Please give me your scientific source that claims survival of the fittest applies to human society. Will wait while laughing.

 

The European Union is primarily an economic system uniting most of the Western European countries. It functions much like an elaborate confederacy. Member states have more political autonomy than economic autonomy within it. But getting full agreement for anything is like herding cats. Overall, they've been remarkably successful. There's more to making an economic comparison between them & us than simple GDP. They have assets within the EU beyond merely economic, and in many EU countries, personal freedoms exceed those enjoyed here by Americans.

 

Products are definitly getting better. That is why Americans are becoming more and more obese and the increase in lifspan is now flat to falling.

 

I remember a time not so long ago when riots like those you point to in France occurred on a daily basis here in the U.S. Freedom to demonstrate is a hallowed right, and one that demonstrates the level of freedom honored by the nation being targeted. The French riots will hasten a resolution of the concerns being voiced by the demonstrators. That's the way free governments work. How unlike the one currently in office in the U.S., which pays no attention to public opinion whatsoever.

 

Then why is the Trump administration and conservative Republicans cutting foreign aid, when the rest of the world so desperately needs it? Is that due to lack of

"Could be" is actually not the same as "is."

 

It's also amazing how impervious a closed mind is to new information. Lenin was a renowned propagandist. He told everyone communism was a form of socialism because he knew most people regarded socialism as compassionate toward the masses. Lenin thought linking communism to socialism would help people accept communism in Europe. But Lenin, like Trump, was a man filled with lies. Your acceptance of Lenin's lies tells us more about you and your ability to discern truth from fantasy, than it says about Lenin, who is already known for who & what he was.

 

It's weird, but not funny, that conservative Republicans dismiss Darwin's Evolutionary Theory regarding life forms, but use his idea of "survival of the fittest" to explain how capitalism works. They seem oblivious to the contradiction.

 

Well probably because they have never actually read Darwin. But it is kind of funny that many who in theory embrace unfettered Capitalism are the ones who would stand no chance in a truely capitalistic system. Take as an example the average Trump supporters who by demographics is undereducated and basically an economic loser and stagnating in lifes race.

 

Ah, no, the GINI coefficient is a stupid measure that some feminist came up with to show that capitalism is bad and communism is good. Equality of outcomes is not a good measure of anything. Class mobility is when people manage to improve their lot or when they fall out of the upper class. It's usually measured in quintiles, with the poorest being in the lowest quintile, the middle class in the middle three, and the "rich" in the upper quintile. But each quintile covers 20% of the population, so it's not the same as the 1%. The "typical" person increases his quintile by one or two quintiles during his working life and then falls back to the quintile he started in on retirement, but it's only about 30-40% who fall into that "typical" pattern anymore. Many people rise and fall in quintiles immediately on finding or losing a job, making mobility both high and low simultaneously. The housing bubble wiped out the wealth of most blacks and Hispanics who had been in the middle class, dropping them in wealth out of the 2nd or 3rd quintile back down into the 1st. It's an example of mobility but not a good one. Here's leftist Paul Krugman complaining about the lack of mobility:

"Economist Paul Krugman complains that conservatives have resorted to "extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion" in claiming high levels of mobility.

Studies by the Urban Institute and the US Treasury have both found that about half of the families who start in either the top or the bottom quintile of the income distribution are still there after a decade, and that only 3 to 6 percent rise from bottom to top or fall from top to bottom.[36]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Now my interpretation: Only half of those in the bottom quintile were still there ten years later, and only half those in the top quintile were still there ten years later. Krugman thinks that's low. I think it's high. 3-6% of the population rises from the bottom quintile to the top quintile every decade? That's fantastic! I could wish for it to be 10%, but there will always be 20% in each quintile by definition.

I couldn't find any statistics that were limited to the Reagan years compared to earlier years, the only studies conflated all of the period from 1980-today with the period from 1950-1980, which covers a lot more presidents than just Reagan. However, the number of millionaire income earners in America did increase substantially during the 1980s, far more than during the earlier decade.

"At the start of the decade, according to the IRS, 4,414 taxpayers reported that they had earned more than $1 million annually in adjusted gross income. By 1990, even as the recession began, the number had climbed to 63,642."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...s-soars/99185778-fb35-4771-b012-7183b91215c7/

That seems like economic mobility to me. What about you?

 

A couple of points:

1) First of all the GINi coeffient eas developed by an Italian male

2) Second the number of millionaires has nothing to do with class mobility.

3) Third what was under discussion is the change in class mobility over time. Class mobility by any measure has declined in America since the fifties and sixties.

4) A change of one quintile counts as a change but is not particulary meaninful in terms of income at the bottom quintile.

5) And a coupke of other issues to keep in mind. There is a difference between generational class mobility and intergenerational class mobility. And income mobility is different from wealth mobility.

 

how much class mobility could there be when libMarxists need class immobility to start their revolution? There is no class mobility in liberal ghettos. They are victims and only libMarxism can get them out, not hard work to be of greater value in the market place.

 

Trump supporters simply want their job back after liberals shipped them to China. Cool that liberals are now contemptuous of the working class, their base for the last 100 years!! More interesting, without the ghetto vote of "undereducated losers" Democrats would cease to exist. Isn't learning fun?

 

So liberals have read Darwin and still support survival of the least fit through welfare to ameliorate social ills??

 

what lie???? you clean forgot to tell us????

 

if you have evidence of that I"ll pay you $10000. Bet??

 

The n=one where Lenin said, "The goal of socialism is communism." That's a lie. No decent socialist wants to be a communist. No true socialist government wants to devolve into a communist one. Communists are tyrants; socialists aren't. Big difference.

 

It's all around you. It's all over this forum, and everywhere else where conservatives talk about capitalism & how it works. Think about how conservative capitalists brag about how competition eliminates competitors, and those who can't compete deserve to fail. It's a page right out of Darwin's "survival of the fittest," with just as little compassion for those who try & fail as one feels for insects eaten by bats. It's contradictory to use Darwin's ideas on species evolution for economics while dismissing them towards the topic for which they were originally derived.

 

Of course Darwin is talking about the process of evolution not about moral behavior or man's responsibility to other men.

 

Very stupid to claim the liberals were responsible for corporations moving manufacturing overseas. And yes learning is fun, try it sometime instead of just spouting moronic Conservative platitudes.

 

you mean except Marx who said socialism was a stepping stone to communism. We see it is true when we see the rapid progression from tax cutting JFK to open commie AOC. As socialism fails you double down toward communism not capitalism. 1+1=2