What is the bottom line?

I'd be interested in learning what different posters think is the most fundamental, underlying cause of most of our national problems. If you post your opinion, first think about anything that might cause what you think to be the bottom line problem. If you think the problem, for example, is that people don't listen to enough music and it causes all our political and economic problems, think about why it might be that people don't listen to enough music. If you can think of a reason they don't listen to enough music, then guess what..... -music isn't the most fundamental, underlying cause.

I'll go first:

I think since the economy is the powerhouse that provides the pathway to all production, the means of personal support through paid work, the reason for why people work, the reason people need a break to play, the reason to provide education, the way to improve or even maintain any lifestyle, . . . . . it is the fundamental influence, determiner, cause, means, and motivator for most human activity. Even in play and recreation we must often buy and pay for goods and access. And economics is behind every political decision, including the decision to require crossing the street at crosswalks because it promotes an orderly society in which orderly commerce, social responsibility, and life in general may proceed and people may thrive and achieve and produce.

Therefore the economy is the bottom line, the foundation from which politics, culture, the body of laws, the judicial system, and all else spring. Even the power of the powerful originates with the economy and wealth. And if we pick any one of the many larger problems facing us today and trace out its cause, we will arrive at the economy as the cause and often as the reason the problem defies resolution. And there is nothing more fundamental causing the economy.

Question: what do you think is the bottom line cause(s)?

 

The economy is both a symptom and a cause of most of our domestic conflicts. . . . There is an ongoing debate concerning whether government expenditures for public welfare should be subsidized at taxpayers' expense.

Can those who claim to be patriots possibly believe that the government’s primary responsibility is protection of wealth, not to “promote the general welfare”, and definitely not the correction of economic deficiencies???. . . . I believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with a nation so rich in resources which subsidizes the extremely wealthy but condones the exploitation of struggling families and resents the government that gives aid to those living in abject poverty.

Desperation no longer merits empathy. Those using the catch phrase "Your money or your life" were once called "armed robbers"; now they call them "conservatives".

 

Sorry. I'm not getting the connection between economy as symptom-and-cause, and the "ongoing debate".

But what is the underlying cause of protection of wealth, but wealth? Wealth requests it, pays for it, funds it, and gets it. So then what is the underlying cause of the sort of irrational and extreme wealth that can cause such an undemocratic, unpatriotic, and unjustifiable shift in protective priorities if not the economy that is more and more devoted to those who are rich enough to buy it? And what is the underlying cause of the existence of a section rich enough to buy it if not the economy itself?

Let's talk about underlying causes..... -the "bottom line".

 

Our wealth is the by-product of coordinated efforts made possible by our unity, and our present economic woes are the result of our increasing division. . . .Economic inequality is the root CAUSE of our strife, but this imbalance is a SYMPTOM of inadequate government regulation.

The ongoing debate is between those who realize that the need represented by the vacuum on the lower end could be easily be eradicated by the government forcing the gluttonous to make small concessions, and on the other hand, those who oppose government intervention.

Socialism and capitalism both need an effective government in order to function as intended. . . . ALL government processes could be considered socialized functions.

I like our government the way it was designed, but some people need constraints and incentives to ensure cooperation. . . . Maybe ineffective government is the underlying cause.

In that case, WE are the bottom line.

 

The left hates the constitution

 

I submit that our increasing division is the result of divisive propaganda designed to pit us against each other to keep us confused and fighting and thereby deflect our attention away from the causes of our problems: the economic system that produces wealth and income disparity and many other problems. Our economic woes don't create devision; division is created to obscure the nature of our economic woes.

-which is what I just said: the economic system causes/produces a need in the rich and powerful to create divisions and fighting to keep us diverted.

Define/describe the "imbalance" to which you refer. What is out of balance? Government operates to provide the legal structure that will allow the economy to operate as smoothly as it can and to keep the economic powers happy and humming. So regulations serve that purpose. Find me an exception.

Oh. OK. There is such a debate.

As does any economy or society.

Approval of off-shore oil drilling? Define "socialized".

The government is not schizophrenic. It is not divided against itself and its obligations. Its function is first to ensure smooth functioning of society and that means keeping the economy humming as best it can, and to keep the corporate elite happy so they will keep functioning. That has led to the corporate elite buying government and seeking domination of government. Given a clear, stark choice between serving the people at the expense of big business, or serving big business at the expense of the people, government always chooses to serve big business. We see this regularly. The right saw it in Obama. The left sees it in Trump and in Bush. The right saw it in Clinton. Some see it in both parties and all government. So with the economic forces determining the actions of government which makes regulations to keep business humming, it is the economic system that is the bottom line. And government works hard at presenting itself as a champion of the people. It's part of the deception and propaganda.

 

Nah! Just people like you.

 

We know you hate the working class of America...

 

I don't know of any that do but the primary responsibility of the federal government is our national security and defense.

If you are referring to the Tax and Spend clause that pertains to the welfare of the US Government and all it's assets and liabilities NOT the welfare of the people.

The more the government can stay out of the economy the better.

I believe there is something intrinsically wrong with a nation that believe the government is their provider instead of promoting strong self sustaining families which can leave more for their future generations than they started with and can freely create and accumulate wealth.

 

The imbalance is the monopolistic control of 37% of our finite capital resources by 1% of our population, resulting in deficiencies in varying degrees among the lower 99%.

. . . .To be made fit for life in the company of others.

The top EXPECTED priority of OUR government is to "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE".

 

Oh. OK. Got it. And you said "this imbalance is a SYMPTOM of inadequate government regulation." But since the job of government is to mediate, support, provide for, and enable the economy so it may continue, and since the economy is the foundation from which everything else springs in support of it, the cause and "raison d'etre" of government regulation is the economy. Hence the economy is a more basic, fundamental, underlying cause of government and what it does, like regulation.

Ok. But that is not only a bit vague, ... it also doesn't say anything about the function of laws, which is always a function in the service to the economy and civilized life in that context. Can you think of a law that clearly isn't?

Welllllll. It's a bit more than that.

 

One word: Entitlement.

 

Bottom line is capitalism vs communism.

It's what we have been arguing about since forever.

 

Name the Year that Trickel Down Economics worked ....

Then post the supporting link ...

 

What is trickle down economics?

See, without a definition, I know you and your ilk. You'll refuse to even acknowledge the link or argument becuase you have no real definition for it. It's your monster under the bed.

 

Are you serious? Are you really that naive?

 

Hierarchy. I'm a bookchinite. I'm a communist too, but a lot less workerist. I agree with Bookchin's assessment that the western worker's movement has essentially been neutralized and it's necessary to find new ground to organize an anti-capitalist movement from. Anti-hierarchy is a good place to start

 

Interesting! What does that mean? What is "anti-hierarchy"?

 

It's an interesting question you ask.

Think about this ...

About 20% of U.S. households fall into the upper class which includes the 1%.

About 80% of U.S. households fall into the middle class, low-income, and poverty classes.

We have a government that is elected by the people. Since the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population falls into the middle class and below, it would seem logical that all of our government's legislation and executive decisions would always be heavily weighted toward benefiting the middle class and below. They are, after all, 80% of the electorate.

But we all know this is not true. The question is, why?

The answer is that the wealthiest among us have a lock on the politicians. And why do they have a lock on the politicians when they only represent 20% of the population?

The answer to that question is that the politicians need their money to get reelected.

What if they couldn't get reelected? If they couldn't get reelected, the wealthiest among us could not buy their government as they do now.

In my opinion, the lack of term limits on Congress is probably the single most corrosive flaw in our Constitution.

You can name any major problem our country faces, and I can link it back to career politicians whose only interest is getting reelected. They will invariably do either the wrong thing, or they will do nothing - one or the other. And the reason the 80% of the U.S. population is not simply overjoyed at the wonderful job their representatives are doing for them is simple ...

They're not working for the 80%.

My

Seth

 

Hi Seth. I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving Day.

You say correctly in my opinion, that "the wealthiest among us have a lock on the politicians". Ok. Good. But let's keep looking deeper. WHY do they even want to "have a lock on the politicians"? Money. -To buy political favors in the form of legislation that will benefit them in their quest for greater and greater wealth. Right?

So why do they have such obscene wealth that 0.000001% (400 people) have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population and a few more? -Business. The magic of the corporation.

And why is it possible that business provides them so much wealth? The S.C. said the first duty of a corporation is to maximize profits. And why profits? Capitalism. Our form of economy allows and even encourages . . . . no, it is based on, private ownership of business for private profit.

Private ownership for private profit is the bottom line. There is no underlying cause to it. It was undertaken by entrepreneurs in the early days of this country, and laws were then developed to support and protect the practice. Capitalism is the cause of the concentration of wealth, which causes pressure on politicians to favor leading wealthy capitalists, which leads to them "buying" government, which leads to further concentration of wealth, which leads to government favoring the rich, which leads to many, many problems for the people starting with our currently extreme income and wealth disparity, but also most every other problem we are faced with nationally.

Yes?

 

It's called a pareto distribution.

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

 

Because of an equation and a graph?? If you weren't so focused on trying hard to look bright, you might come up with an answer that is grounded in the real world of people.

And to prove the pointlessness of your reply, try using a pareto distribution to explain why worker-owned, worker controlled co-ops don't conform to the 80-20 rule regarding pay scale.

 

If you can prove that it doesn't, then great!

But they do conform to the 80-20 rule.

If they don't, then they soon will. It's how things roll in economics, dude. Pareto is not my idea (unfortunately) but rather a power law that works whether you like it or not.

 

The Federal Reserve

EndTheFed

 

Corporations are a creation of the state. In the free market there should be no limited liability.

I'd quite happily go along with their abolition. It's the laissez-faire thing to do.