America's 1% Has Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

1) In a capitalist democracy, you can be anything you want. When nothing is stopping you but yourself, you have real power to avoid poverty. It's the only system which allows you to avoid it, in fact.

2) It has nothing to do with 'hierarchies'. CAPITALism is about profit - profit over and above what is required for basic survival. Hierarchies exist in all manner of different economic models, they have no bearing on the fundamental nature of the model.

 

Capitalism: "In general, capitalism as an economic system and mode of production can be summarised by... high levels of wage labour."

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

"Wage labour is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour power under a formal or informal employment contract."

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

"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises."

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

 

In the factory somebody else took the risk and sacrifice to build.

 

It is only possible under Capitalism, where goods and services are produce by competing entities.
Capitalism is always changed by Imperialism i.e. power of international monopolies.
Democracy is not capable to fight monopolies, so the only answer is a Socialism.

 

Love it when you tell the economics profession they don't know what they are talking about.

 

Wrong. Every member is required to invest in the co-op:

 

After you've taken the factory someone else took the risk and sacrificed to build.

 

And? You real close to my ignore list.

 

The tax rates that yield the highest real GDP growth are around 50%. Somewhere around the Kennedy times.
Higher taxes encourage risk by the rich.

 

95% of American's live on wages. Only 5% live on Capital. From 79 to 2015 there was a significant change in income distribution away from the 95% who worked towards the 5% who lived on capital resulting in today's lowest earners earning in real terms less than they did then. Most of this money has gone to the top 1%. We forgot what we had learned about the pitfalls of Finance and Corporate Power prior to WW2 which led to us moving towards mixed economies where the intent was to be able to provide everybody with a job. That was one of the key things Governments were judged on. At this time most workers belonged to a Union. They would bargain for increase in wages. During this time the workers gained from productivity. They had an increasing standard of living and were able to think of other things like the quality of life. This was the sort of way we lived from the 40's till the 70's. From 1973 we see a gap between productivity and wages. People were not being adequately compensated for their work and that gap widens as time goes by and along with that widenling is inequality and a poorer quality of life particuarluy for those at the bottom. It is also worth pointing out that both in the US and the UK Governments were afraid they would have revolution if they did not give their people a decent standard of living after so many had died in two world wars. (The British elite had been worried about this since the French Revolution)

Neo Liberalism is not Capitalism. One of the things capitalists could always say was that there is a risk for them. That was one of the ways they tried to justify themselves making money out of others. No more. In 2008 we, the people, bailed out the Capitalists and since then pretty much any agreement they get involved in demands that they be protected. Each year fewer people are taking more of the wealth. Way beyond what anyone could need but which most certainly gives a tiny few a great deal of power just like in the time of Aristocracy a tiny few had the power. From the 1940's it was recognised that Government had to keep a firm hold on Finance. If they did not keep a firm hold on finance, unemployment would set in and as I set at that time Governments were expected to be able to provide full employment for the people. Neo Liberalism got rid of the positive aspects of Government - where Politians would have ideals of the better way of life the people could have. Neo Liberalism only talks about money arguing wrongly that it is rational. An incredible amount of what people worked for which resulted in us having mixed economies which believed in full employment went with neo liberalism. Neo Liberals do not want full employment because they they would need to pay decent wages like they did in the times of almost full employment. One would need to ask how the hell they managed this. Getting rid of the Unions would have to be one of the top reasons, Unions used to look after members in need and give them a political education - at least they did in the UK. Now it is just each person on their own and a person on their own is weak. The system itself leads to what politicfal theorists are speaking about as a new form of feudalism but made worse by the reality that the need for people to sell their labour to capitalists is diminishing rapidly. Jobs are beoming scarcer and will continue to do so. There is no freedom in this. We have lost the freedom those who came before us worked so hard to gain. This isn't about 'success', It is almost impossible in the US now for social mobility. That means a person born into poverty has almost no chance of ever getting out of it and that is real and we know that. The US has the lowest social mobility in the Developed world, followed by the UK. I think one of the ways where we can most easily see if someone has achieved success is that they will have been able to move up the ladder. That is what people did before the 70's. Now it is almost impossible. The only people who gain from this system are Finance, Corporations, the very richest 1%. What you are supporting is the creation of a new aristocracy where a very few people have an enormous amount of power, where deomcracy is only there in name and freedom is a joke.

 

Why?
Be proud that socislists want to take what they have not built.

 

I just showed you that all members have to invest in the company. You're strawmanning.

 

Which brings me to the real issue; Responsible government. (An oxymoron) We should not be discussing giving the alcoholic more alcohol. Taxes need to be cut and politicians need to stop spending like thieves with a stolen credit card.

The thread title is misleading. Rich don't take from anyone. It is given willingly.

 

A company you take from someone else.

 

Very little comes down to individual choices. Very very little. Despite what you may think. We are not alone on an island like robinson cruseo

Me too. It would help if you gave a quote. Just to put 1,2,3 says nothing.

Ah got it. You didn't read what I wrote. The reason for the massive uptake in suicide among white working class middle age men, I forgot the middle aged part before is because they are unable to find the American Dream and because they think in the same way as you do so they believe it is because they are inferior and are very ashamed. The reality is that since the 80's jobs have been going down. You keep 2.4 million in jail to cope with some of that but that will have to become more.

This idea you have that people not being able to find jobs is all the person who cannot find a jobs own fault is just you drinking the propaganda of neo liberalism as well as not keeping up with things like the number of jobs around. It is fairly recent that wwc men have not been able to rely on finding the job they need and being able to provide for their family and in the US they always had the ability to think of themsleves as better than those of colour who did not have this possibility as pretty much a right. That right is gone and it is going to go for a lot more people. Do not think it will not catch you. They did not expect it to get them. They were more than prepared to work hard for a decent life. The US is also full of towns where the industry which was in it has gone and there is no work for just about everyone in that town.

Neo Liberalism has failed. It failed in 2008 but instead of looking at things again it just kept going. Everyone was saying it was going to fail in 2020 for years now and that when it did fail it was going to fail like the Great Depression as we are already at 0 % interest, there is nowhere left to go. Coronavirus has given it a bit of an excuse but it was going to happen anyway. Interesting times ahead. The most likely answer is a form of fascism as people will need to be kept controlled and the small nomber of Global Corporations can make deals with Governments and that looks like where we are headed - with all the usual fascist dreams being promoted, hatred of gays, misogyny, the other - either muslims or immigrants - just all the old stuff to get the people hating the other rather than dealing with the real problems. Some people think that the one thing which might save people from their delightful future as a serf is Climate Disaster. Weird that they see the most criminal behaviour of the Corporations, Ecoside as the possibile saviour of us from them.

No this is another of the false propaganda which has been put out. The reality is that while there were jobs for everyone, people consideered it shameful to be out of one, just like your middle aged WWC. Where the feeling about being alright to be on the dole came, certainly in the UK ,was when Thatcher produced mass unemployment. She hoped to be able to get people to work for next to nothing, People became depressed. Their Unions were still in contact with them offering them support. When they noticed they were deprerssed which is very common in people who are unemployed, they suggested they go to their Dr and get them to sign them off sick and then they would get extra money. In addition to that because it was obvious that people did not have the opportunity to work and had fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, the belief that it was 'shameful' not to have a job went.

Up until the 70's most people's lives were improving financially and because of that they were able to think of non material things which make for quality of life like working less hours and doing things they enjoyed. Empathy is a feeling. One of the criticisms of the Nazis and the inhumanity they were able to get up to was that they lacked empathy. You can feel how others feel and feel with and for them if you have empathy. I can tell you the psychology of Neo Liberalism as expressed by Milton Friedman loved by Thatcher who also believed the same. He believed we were all litte Robinson Cruseos living on our own little islands caring only for ourselfves. Forgetting this for a moment he asks. 'Say you are going down the road with two friends and you find a ten dollar bill (they were worth a bit more in those days) Do you think of sharing it with your two friends? Of course you do not, he answers. You just pick it up and put it in your own pocket. and that is the psychology of Neo Liberalism. The belief that we all only care for ourselves....and yes, a person with that kind of personality would be incapable of empathy but I do not believe that is most of us.

 

Any enterprise involved in the generation of profit (aka CAPITALISM), cannot avoid the buying and selling of labour. It goes with the territory. A single person cannot produce significant surplus, so if significant surplus is required, labour must be bought.

Socialism means nil surplus (nil profit), and only sufficient for the immediate basic needs of those engaged in the enterprise. No buying or selling of labour is involved, only 'unpaid' labour.

Forget your wiki crap, and focus on the real, actual, lived, pragmatics of the two models. When you can grasp the difference (let's say it together ... PROFIT), you can start to have a better understanding of what you really want. To put it another way: if you want the populace to have the opportunity to escape poverty, you would never support state socialism.

 

1) Yes, it is. Every single choice we make from our first pay packet, impacts our financial security. It has nothing to do with how much we earn, the times we live in, or the luck of our births. ALL of it comes back to what we do with whatever money we earn. Two people working the same job in the same location, subject to exactly the same broader influences .. can have utterly different financial statuses at retirement. One might have stayed married, had a couple of kids, paid off a house as quickly as possible, and lived a very frugal and careful life for those 40 years of work. While the other might have spent everything he/she made for the first few years instead of saving to buy property .. thus condemning themselves to spending a million bucks on rent over that 40 years, with nothing to show for it at the end and an obligation to keep paying it after retirement else be homeless. They might have borrowed money for new cars, and spent on lifestyle (whatever that involves for the individual .. could be champagne, could be fast food), and never bothered saving for a rainy day. In other words, your argument is completely without merit.

2) NO ONE is magically entitled to be immune to changing economies. NO ONE is given guarantees that their high cost lifestyle is for life, with no effort or adaptation required. Anyone who literally thinks nothing will ever change, and that a precariously balanced life full of liabilities (mortgages, other debt, expensive lifestyle) is not a house of cards, has much bigger problems to start with. If people don't prepare for 'disaster' and life as though it's always possible ... then they are responsible entirely. It's not as though it's ever too late to start being adaptable either. You can do it on a dime if it's important enough to you. Any of these white working class men you say are impacted, can do so.

 

Capitalism is undemocratic and anti-democratic. You end up with a ruling class and an exploited class. Worker co-ops "attack the groundwork" of capitalism, as Marx put it. It's democracy in the workplace.

In a socialist society, an individual's pay is decided collectively and democratically by the citizens. As Karl Marx wrote in his 'Critique of the Gotha Programme,' if the society compensates workers on the basis of their contributions, some people are going to get a bigger share than others because "one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor at the same time."

https://books.google.com/books/about/Delphi_Collected_Works_of_Karl_Marx_Illu.html?id=nou3DQAAQBAJ

 

1) Capitalism is the only system in which the masses are free to escape poverty. And there is no ruling class when all labour exchange is entirely voluntary, as it is under Capitalism. Democracy is lost when that freedom is lost. You seem very confused.

2) In a Socialist State, there is no pay to decide on. There is no "decision" available, or profit with which to impose it upon. No matter how motivated and ambitious you are, you will never have more than a room and board, and the lazy guy sleeping in the next cubicle will receive exactly the same. You will never escape poverty, you will never have a choice, and you will ALWAYS be unjustly 'rewarded' in one way or another (because a socialist state cannot cater to individual difference). You're definitely confused.

 

I stopped reading there.

Billionaires Want People Back to Work. Employees Aren't So Sure - Bloomberg

Billionaires Want People Back At Work, Even If It Kills Them | HuffPost



Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

 

It isn't flowing to the top. It is sitting at the top. 84% of stocks are owned by the top 1%. There is no way to change that without crashing stock prices. MZ owns more facebook shares than the public does. Nobody has the money to buy out Bezos. The supply is shorted to inflate the prices. It is all a house of cards.

 

The FED not only created $3T since February, it exchanged it for underwater/failng assets on the books if the large investment banks, placing those assets onto the FED's books. Money for nothing

Somehow that's just not capitalism, ....as the author of the OP would want you to believe

 

A ruling class cannot exist in a democracy unless we permit it to.

You are VERY confused.

 

America's 1% Has Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%
What's the other 9% doing while this is going on?

 

LOL