Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

This I agree with.

But this is the only argument I have heard about the wealth gap that makes sense.

Again, that isn't a wealth problem, it's a government problem.

 

Because the state is a violent institution.

 

The company should maximize its profits by paying the workers zero dollars.

 

What hype innovative new products are GREAT! Do you still read by a kerosene lattern? How do you get on the interenet? Just got me a new Boss acoustic preamp for mybacoustice guitars MAN this takes it to the next level.

Why should we stymie new products?

 

Oh, nothing. There's nothing "wrong" with believing you'll win the lottery if you buy $10,000 worth of tickets, either.

Oh what a nice, neat theory. But do you see that happening? Ryobi tools are crap but they're selling plenty to "consumerists". Why? What happened to the nice, neat theory that consumers will reject crap and buy "reliable tools at an affordable price" and therefore a manufacturer will fill the gap? Why is Ryobi selling so well?
Advertising. Snagging gullible consumers.

Riiiiiiiiiight. We see that all the time, eh? Or do we see VW and GM cheating and continuing to fool consumers with glitzy ads instead?

So capitalism needs to be controlled or greed sets in, eh?

You're thinking of times long gone by and pretending things don't change and evolve.

Yes, and if you study into it you find it's because we long ago established an extensive record-keeping tradition and our statistical and other publications inform startup businesses and the things you mention. The main downfall of other countries that haven't done as well has been poor records.

Oh heck no, I see it all, and I see the evolution and direction capitalism is taking, and necessarily so. You only see what textbooks, capitalist economics, and the media say.

What's "pudd'in"?

True socialism won't ignore those either. And you aren't seeing what capitalism is becoming.

Right. Just democracy itself as well as poverty.

See? Another case of not paying attention and therefore getting it wrong. Nobody is complaining about differences in wealth. The objection is to the outrageous degree of disparity and its continuing growth!

And you just acknowledged that the wealth gap matters to somebody. And you added that it doesn't affect you. And everyone I come across who asserts the gap doesn't matter indicate that they think it's really all about them. "Screw everyone else. They don't count."

 

This is malarky! Try again explaining precisely how Bill Gates can effect a person and prevent this person from achieving their potential? FACT is Gates does not detract from anyone else who desires to increase their wealth...

 

So consumerism is gambling?

Ok, so let me get this straight. The success of capitalism is only a theory, all while the world's fastest growing economies are simultaneously becoming more capitalist? Your perspective is that milwuakee tools ate not manufactured as good as they used to be, and instead there is a huge conspiracy to make people victims by selling crap Ryobi tools? Really?

So... people are once again victims of advertising because they elect to buy a GM product? Here is the deal. You love government protection for perceived victims of consumerism, because you view capitalism as evil. All while simultaneously, around the world, evidence continues to show what detriment actually happens when government owns and controls the means of production.

I'm not a laaziez faire capitalist. Of course anti trust and other consumer protections are necessary.

Let me ask you this. In your socialist wonderland, who protects the people from government? Hmmm.

I'm young at 38. I'm not imagining anything. I see it everyday.

Wtf? Are you serious.

The United States is successful because we kept good records.

Wow.

The direction capitalism is taking? Capitalism is at will and the closest to a barter and trade system.

Look man. If you want to defend your positions, do it on your merit, not by trying to make me look uneducated or inferior in knowledge. It just makes you look desperate.

Oh! So done disparity is acceptable? Great, can you define those parameters?

I never said that. I used myself as an example.

The wealth gap impacts nobody in the manner you are trying to claim it does.

 

Good point. Economics isn't science. It is social analysis and includes nearly as many opinions about the subject as there are economists.

 

And then there are those liars' figures that say our economy is great
only the greatness never seems to trickle down to those who need it most.

Rich peoples figures.
Wall St. figures.
We need Main St. figures.
Not just unemployment / employment but shifts in "job quality".
Job quality as in wages/salaries and benefits.
A chef job being higher job quality than a McDonald's burger flipper.


Moi

r > g

​

 

Obviously we should kill Bezos, Gates and Buffet (or whoever that third guy is) and give all their money to the homeless who defecate in the streets and shout at imaginary enemies all day.

 

In allowing people to give you your rights, you're also allowing them to take them away.

Government is not the answer, it's the problem.

People need others to rule over them, because they have no common sense on good and evil. If everybody would love their neighbors as themselves, that literally solves everything.

If we must have a government, then to remedy authority, laws, corruption, etc, then the govt should be very small, and mainly concentrating on protecting the people militarily, and do so defensively, not offensively.

America has roughly 350 million people, and roughly 2.3 billion acres of land. The amount of land each person could have is ridiculously large. Can American citizens go out and claim a piece of land that nobody is using? No they can't. Can the govt? Yes they can, and they do.

So it's freedom for govt, but not for the people. Sounds like Rome!

 

Economics today is illegitimate, rigged, and money is printed (created) as desired, and in a manner of inflation. Controlling this inflation (claiming such) is recognized as legit.

The only thing legit about economics is in balances. One cannot spend what he/she doesn't have, and any deal as to a "loan", should be between the loaner and recipient only. Meaning interest and or amount of time to pay it back. The penalty for not paying it back should be in reputation and shame. Once acquiring such a reputation, nobody would be willing to loan to them. This is not the case, for I know of two people that should not be given a loan at all, they never pay it back, yet through the claim of being "poor" they are able to continue in such behavior. The currency should always maintain the same value, and that value should lay within the physical currency. Such as old coins, which always had the silver, gold (value), within the coin. Paper currency is specifically to collect real currency or value (gold), and hand you the paper (non value). This requires them to do whatever they can to keep that paper in the peoples mind, as something of value. "Good trade cowboy!"

Some people would say, "well having gold of value is only within the head as well". In some degree I would agree, but whereas gold and silver has always been a world wide value, it will remain as such. That's what the hunt is for, and always has been gold and silver. If somebody is or was willing to hand their gold away in exchange for paper, I'm sure the one receiving the gold is very pleased.

This (the above), is done by every government of the world. They hold the gold and silver, and hand the people the paper. And any major deal between nations, is done in gold and silver. That should tell the people something, but their far to busy with their so called "needs", such as telling people what they had for lunch on facebook, taking pics of the lunch and selfies.

Any time a nation is beginning to run out of gold and silver, that nation starts war, in an attempt to steal more gold and silver, and simply tells their people otherwise. What is known today as, "false flags". And why wouldn't the people fall for it, after-all, they fall for modern day economics as well.

We live in a world where the government can see your bank account, what you purchase, your land and or property (property is more than just land), has the ability to cease your account, take your money, and do so all with computers, within minutes. Yes, I am sure they are extremely pleased at the ignorance of the people.

People are far to busy with things that matter not, ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Progressive Taxation is the answer.
The Eisenhower Tax Code.
Dismantled via Bipartisan Tax Cut packages since 1960 & Saint JFK
creating the Uber Rich and working people
Working people living barely better than welfare people paraphrase Jimmy Carter.

Consider taxation is not a club membership fee, one price for all.
Taxation should be on a "Tax Pain Index", not numbers.
The uber rich claim with tears their numbers are so much higher
while their "Tax Pain Index" is so much lower upon taxation than labor.
The Eisenhower Tax Code, A Progressive Tax code distributed the pain more fairly.
Certainly Ike inherited that tax code from FDR/Truman but Ike did not dismantle it.
He built FREEWAYS, no toll.

Decades of unbalanced taxation gas resulted in the concentration of wrath we face today.

What part don't you get. Try avoid the word "redistribution" because that horror
was the result of the destruction of the Eisenhower Tax Code and the resulting
concentration of wealth.

Thus Spaketh Moi



I am two cups of coffee low, forgive any strangeness or grammar errors.
gracias


And by all means, kick the Federals out of property they cannot claim for national defense.



Once a territory is organized into a State, the Federals do NOT have Constitutional rights to continue hold property there. The Federal Turf is Washington, D.C. and administering territories not yet States. Constitutionally speaking


El Moi
Defender of us peeples.

 

So you missed my point I see. You fail to grasp that its not about "right and wrong" as in "ethics and morals" but rather about what works and solving problems by dealing with facts and causes.

IOW you have no real answer to the problems. World's fastest growing economies? Really? Check those economies. What's growing in those countries is wealth disparity. What's growing in those countries is the wealth of the rich. What's growing in those countries is the poverty of the majority. And it's all linked because we now have a world system with economies linked, mainly to the USA, and changing in similar ways. Here. Check the income and wealth disparity of other capitalist countries that you claim are "fast growing". - http://wid.world/

So? I'm completely opposed to government owning the means of production. It was tried and it failed for known reasons.

Ah! So you see it to be necessary to have "government protection for perceived victims of consumerism". You argue both sides of the debate when convenient, eh?

Well, in our system we have nobody protecting the people from government, and your side has plenty of complaints about "evil government". But the truth is that the ultimate political power rests in the hands of the people. Get just 4-5% of the population out to protest and demand change in town halls and in the streets and the government will cave like it did in the 1930s and 40s. And under socialism, the people would be organized and involved much more. There would be workers' unions, consumers' collectives, and the government would not be bought out and owned by the corporate elite. And that is the ONLY reason our government is not responsive to the people: corporate control.

So under socialism, we would have far less threat and harm from government.

Then I have seen twice as much as you have.

Yup. See, this is one of those things you haven't seen but I have. Search out the studies. They're available. Land ownership records, land use records, productivity records, automation records, correlation of factors contributing to business success, etc. Due to records, it has been possible to keep business more competitive and "lawful" than in other countries having poor records. In the 1940s there was a crackdown on monopoly practices because records of businesses were available. Start-up businesses could study the practices and success of others. Business schools could draw from records to teach methods. In many other countries records are often very hard or impossible to come by.

This may provide some information: http://countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-6.htm

Not true and not relevant. You don't seem to grasp the evolution of our economy over the last century.

Then show you know some history.

Come again? I suspect "done" was a typo.

But the point that you missed is that individuals, like yourself, and anecdotes about one or two of them do not provide meaningful data. Statistics are required: averages, the median, totals, ranges, etc.

You haven't proven otherwise.

 

I don't believe that the market formats are the best way to address "problems".

Wealth disparity is only a problem to zero sum economic theories, of which you apparently align.

The PER CAPITA income of the Chinese is booming, as their economy turns more and more capitalist.

I always find shades of grey in all of my positions. You like to deal in absolutes, black and white, or at least paint people into corners insinuating that they are absolute so that you can argue against them.

Newsflash, somebody can support a capitalist society and free markets and still understand the importance of SOME consumer and economic protections.

The government is a necessary evil. That doesn't minimize the fact that government is an inherently LOSING entity when it comes to economies. Government is a net drain on our economy, and most of their actions artificially raise the free market costs through imposed regulations. Necessary? Yes, to a minimal degree.

Here is the problem Kode. You want to make everybody an extremist. If somebody on this forum is a supporter of capitalism and opposing the concepts and theories of socialism, you want to paint them into a corner, assume they desire to prey on the weak and poor, and that they support anarchy. Maybe that helps you feel better when you get to debate them on perspectives that you made up about them, but it does nothing in terms of having a logical conversation.

So your support of socialism is to return the power of the government from corporations to the people.

Fine. Let's debate that point, but first we need to acknowledge that both systems have inherent flaws. Certainly you don't think a transition to socialist principals comes without problems?

Nope. I am not going to play this game.

Once again, your problem is how you approach the debate. No, sorry, you aren't more intelligent than I, nor do you get to "educate" me to see why your opinions are apparently superior. No, you don't get to paint my positions into a corner so you can argue against them.

You don't want to debate topics, you want to persuade everybody that they don't know what they are talking about and you are superior. If this is your position, I have absolutely no interest in trying to have a logical conversation with you.

None of which means anything if you take the incentive of those businesses and start-ups away.

 

You had said "Why on earth would the wealthy with all their money invested in companies trying to produce income not want other people to become wealthy? How would that make them more wealthy. They need other wealthy people to hire people and put them to work making money so they can buy their products."

The wealthy are going for maximum profits at any cost. It is what will insulate them from buyouts and from being crushed by competing multinational corporations. That is why they moved overseas: cheaper labor and tax advantages. They are now "internationalists" and so they will market to the world. Hence they don't give a damn about the wealth, or lack thereof, of the American consumer. Each of them want to be on the top, contrary to your thought of them wanting others to be wealthy. They don't. And zero-sum or not, disparity is a problem for all advanced and developed countries right now. And they're all hearing objections from their populations. Workers cannot be expected to discover some magical way of tripling their income, let alone getting rich. So an objection about "zero-sum" is a non sequiter, as is any comparison to China.

China had a very long way to go, and a transition to capitalism was what their feudal economy needed at that time. But as we speak and write, China is experiencing plenty of protest and discontent over their current capitalist conditions too. But you err if you assume the booming Chinese economy means that capitalism is the "best system". It is the best for them at this time. But economies evolve according to advancing conditions. And we, at our point in our evolution of our economy, cannot tweak capitalism to create a boom like China is experiencing, or even to make capitalism permanently good for us. We have to consider where we are in our economic evolution and what the actual conditions are in the big picture.

That's the first time I ever heard a non-rightie being accused of liking to deal in absolutes! LOL!! But if you feel painted into a corner, own your stand.

That's good.

You also said "Wealth disparity is only a problem to zero sum economic theories, of which you apparently align." Don't you think that did the same thing that you're complaining about?

Of course!

No system is perfect. There is no utopia. There will always be problems to solve. But our current system can't solve most of the problems it has created, like the healthcare crisis or the problem of stagnant wages. Capitalism has served its purpose and it's time to move on before it degenerates and rots and ends in disaster. And it's happening: we are moving on, bit by bit with a new, emerging socialist economy here and there throughout the country.

"Game"? I wouldn't expect you to research every detail contrary to capitalist ideals any more than I would research every detail of right wing defense of capitalism. You need to either do the debate or if you can't take the heat....... well, you know about the kitchen I'm sure.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You dish out your own heat and I reply to it.

I gave you the reason India, Pakistan, China for a long time, and many other South American and African countries remain impoverished or barely better and cannot seem to boost their economies to greater levels. Doubt it if you like.

 

People should be able to enter into any economic relationships they choose. If a bunch of people want to establish a worker self directed enterprise, they should free to do so.

 

Ok, I'm done. Go find somebody else to play with. Im not interested in coming down to your level of debate.

 

I figured you would run. I knew you weren't up to the challenge.

 

I had to search by following links since the source basically refused to name names.

Holey green backs and ANTIFA !!!

The riches who own most of the wealth in America are mostly liberal Democrats.

While they walk their way laughing to the bank they tell you, "Nobody wins unless everyone wins."