Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

This is unquestionably true and if we're to look at the role of government then it should be to ensure that no one is disadvantaged by the economic system. The economic system should be dedicated to the protection of the Rights of the Person without government favoritism for anyone. The government should be concerned with a "level playing field" where everyone has equal opportunity and not subjected to disadvantagous treatment.

We do not have equality of opportunity in the United States and our government engages in favoritism in its economic policies that are directed towards the wealthy at the expense of the workers in America today and that is a serious problem that few are willing to address. Economic interventionism in the economy always favors the few at the expense of the many. If the government isn't completely neutral where all people are treated equally then it inherently creates a superior economic group over the average person.

Of note "economic favortism" for the wealthy is a nefarious action by the politican. Only the wealthy create the Super-PAC's that have an overwhelming influence on the re-election of the incumbant politicans. Of course the "politicans" favor the wealthy as they fund the re-election bids of the incumbant with their wealth. One Super-PAC with $10 million in funding trumps 10 million low income workers in the re-election of the politican.

I don't oppose the Super-PAC but do oppose the favorable tax treatment of the wealthy that affords them an disproportiate amount of wealth accumulation based upon favortism in our tax codes.

 

I don't know why this country of ours doesn't just declare itself a royal dictatorship and be done with it. It would be a more honest of an approach at least.

 

And that is why massive 'reform' will take place eventually; things cannot go on like this for all time.

 

Wishful thinking at best dude. Reform can't happen until the current system collapses and the fat cats will keep leeching the current system for as long as they possibly can. There's gonna be a lot of "Hell to pay" before that happens and it will befall the poorest first. The champagnes drinkers will be safe on their yachts for a while.

 

Which contracts?

Right, because you say so. That's what collectivist arguments always boil down to...

 

It is impossible for producers to be compensated in accordance to what they rightfully earn in this rent-seeking economy. It is mathematically impossible. Economic rents are not earned through production, yet the rents enable the recipients to receive a share of production. If non-producers are receiving a share of production, then producers are certain to not be receiving what they earn. It is estimated that rent-seekers are currently capturing about 40% of economic output, that means that producers (which include the working poor) are receiving 40% less reward than they are rightfully entitled to.

 

It's hopeful, I know. I may be LONG GONE before it gets right, but I won't lose all hope.

 

Since I am not defending rent-seeking, I fail to see your point.

 

That's an entertaining delusion you've constructed.

Tell me: do you see that same problem in Nature? If so, what would you propose we do to eliminate such injustice? If not: have you just been busted uttering another stupidity?

 

Other animals may be social, but only we are political animals.

 

The optimist guarantees the future is uncertain. The pessimist usually has more information and is usually right.

 

Sometimes, for human beings to get to where they need to be... a REALIST equipped with some 'hope' is needed. I am a career military guy, "caution" is my middle name; but thank goodness I've also learned to think outside of the box (too much consternation breeds paralysis/stagnation, if it isn't balanced-out by a little innovation, optimism and/or faith).

I have often dealt with a concept (taught in the military) known as "Risk Management". In the most practical sense, that concerns itself with matching risk-taking with the objective(s) sought. Taking unnecessary risk is a 'no-no' and improperly managing risks leads to less getting done than should be.

I'm not an optimist myself, but in life I've often seen things go good, or someone winning a battle against long odds because someone had a good plan executed with some balls. I'm a realist, not so much a pessimist or optimist.

There is no perfect safety and people often fear danger where there is not so much of it. Risks must be taken but managed properly.

 

LMAO...Yeah, genius, it's called civilization.
We use science to learn about nature to avoid and overcome its threats.
We care for one another collectively when nature threatens us.
We don't practice social Darwinism, and unlike right-wingers, nature is not greedy, bigoted or vindictive.
The stupidity of your comment is based on the selfish right-wing notion that you're on your own and if you ever do need help, you can go eat (*)(*)(*)(*) and die, just like the animals in nature.
What a spiritually bankrupt mentality.

 

Amen! Yes, indeed!

 

Gosh. Don't be so scientificky.

As for Nature... did Mother Nature create the stock market, or create over-consumption leveraged with consumer debt, in turn making people indentured slaves to their lenders until they die? Libertarian objectivism is not "natural".

 

There is a misconception related to this statement. "Businessmen" that are workers of enterprise that produce goods and services, even if they are the few very highly paid CEO's of large corporations with mulit-million dollar incomes, are treated the same as middle and low income workers in our society as their wages are taxed as "earned income" under our tax codes. They are contributing to the creation of wealth in America just like the $10/hr laborer and are taxed under the same tax codes.

It's the investors that aren't producing any goods or services, overwhelmingly dealing in the secondary stock market, that aren't creating any wealth in America but instead profiting from the creation of wealth in America, that have a huge tax advantage as they pay much lower tax rates on "unearned income" under the Capital Gains tax loophole that are the recepientes of favoritism by our elected representatives.

This of it this way. "Earned income" represents the creation of wealth. "Unearned income" represents taking the wealth from others that created it. Why does our government fundamentally "reward" those that take the wealth from others with lower tax rates. I don't oppose investors but it's the creation of wealth that is important in society and those that actually create the wealth are being subjected to the highest tax rates.

Yes, capitalism is a form of competition but in a competition the playing field needs to be level. Because we have preferrential tax policies where those not creating any wealth and are minimalistic consumers reap the most from the wealth created by others we don't have a level playing field.

To level the playing field the tax burden relative to gross income needs to the same for all individuals regardless of income level. We're not even close to having a level playing field related to taxation in America as the low and middle income workers of America have a much, much higher tax burden relative to gross income.

 

It can't be Capitalism that is killing our morals because we can only get what we pay for under capitalism.

 

Business men don't contribute the same tax burdens as the $10/hr laborer in a Capitalist state, because they proportionally make more money.

A 30 percent tax rate means less to a millionaires disposable income than it does for someone making 10 dollars an hour, even if they are paying the same tax rates.

So JFK's top marginal tax rate of 90 percent on the rich would be a fairer rate on the Rich Business Man, in Europe since they are Socialist. But since America is capitalist, the business men have the luxury of paying less than their fair share of taxes since they are the winners of competition, and can afford to lobby for lower tax rates.

Investors like George Soros should be exempt from this if America were to become socialist as Europe, as they lobby for the democrat party and without them there would be no business men or capitalism. The capital they use to invest with is responsible for the economy, and the privileges that come with Capitalism that the business men enjoy..They take more risk on their monies helping a business man start, or expand his business if it should go public in the stock market. So the capital gains rate on financial investments should remain at 15 percent for the reasons specified...

 

I believe we have already "met our objectives" whenever the wealthiest qualify for multimillion dollar bonuses from corporate welfare and deserve our bonus of a boom; or, end the distinction of capital gains from income.

 

Socrates was just an intellectual pedophile pandering to Plato's clique of aristocratic boytoys. He was the first academic snob.

 

Scientists create all these products. We had the rich in the Middle Ages and society stagnated because science was stuck. It is typical of investor parasites to not only claim credit for everything they stole, but to also control minds so we no longer even know who actually invented all the things we buy from these thieves. When Americans were free, they were told about Edison, Bell, the Wright Brothers, etc. Now nothing but silence about where the intellectual capital comes from. Steve Jobs couldn't even program, but he gets credit and wealth for the iphones.

Capitalism is feudalism. I'm sure the Nobility With No Ability also claimed credit for feeding all the peasants who slaved for them.

 

The Heirhead airheads display the inevitable hypocrisy that covers every item on their agenda. They make sure their kids are never on their own and always have Daddy ready to buy them power and bail them out. We have to abolish birth privileges in order to see how quickly the rich will demand government help for everybody when their own brats have to live like everybody else. It will also stop a lot of wars if their own brats need to volunteer just to have a job.

 

Unless you're a corporate fat cat, CEO, or some other criminal type, and THEN, you get unfounded riches and unlimited wealth beyond the wildest dreams. If you can learn how to slit the other guy's throat, shuffle paper, lay off or otherwise outsource those pesky and expensive pools of labor, you'll do unbelievably well. (You have to sell your soul though and be resigned to the depths of Hell for all eternity). Otherwise though, it's all good for you and yours.

 

Socrates was spot-on in his estimate of democracy.

His thinking has been the gold standard for two and a half millennia.

 

Social collapse is far more likely to occus as a result of our devaluation of human life through abortions, and the dis-incentivization of working for a living, being productive, and making a good life for yourself!

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could just get yourself a good education, work hard and make a successful life for yourself!