View Full Version : Is U.S. Capitalism On The Brink Of Collapse?
Williamsmith
9-2-18, 11:44pm
You have to ask yourself, is modern capitalism sustainable? Or will it just collapse under the production of its own massive wealth inequality. The future of capitalism seems to be endangered by its own success. I’m not suggesting anyone has a viable replacement, but I am suggesting we take a look at where this system we call capitalism is headed. It may be the only chance to cushion the fall.
I know Milton Friedman would like everything to be so simple. Just leave it to the “free market”. But is there such a thing these days? The extrodinary wealth inequality we are experiencing isn’t a result of free market as much as it is the manipulation of government by corporations for the benefit of their owners and CEOs. While the employees file for welfare benefits and work like rats in mazes to get by.
The distribution of medical care and the quality of treatment is laughable in the richest country in the world. Isn’t it ironic that we have public campaigns to entice people to pay attention to their health and at the same time subsidize a food distribution and production system that encourages people to eat an extremely unhealthy diet?
Is it truly impossible to design a tax system that redistributes wealth without crippling economic growth? At a time when one of our citizens is the wealthiest man ever to have lived ....ever and earns more than the entire GDP of a Middle East oil rich country.
Perhaps the most dangerous threat capitalism is to itself , is its ability to empower individuals and groups to purchase political power and influence which in turn facilitates more wealth. But don’t listen to me......listen to a guy you wouldn’t expect to be calling out the rich.....listen to Tucker Carlson of FOX News! So what do you think? Is capitalism “transitional?”
https://youtu.be/Riinow64_jY
early morning
9-3-18, 12:36am
I think some guy named Karl Marx already weighed in on this one.
Teacher Terry
9-3-18, 1:51am
I think many European countries are doing a good job of balancing capitalism with socialism or democratic socialism.
Williamsmith
9-3-18, 7:00am
I think many European countries are doing a good job of balancing capitalism with socialism or democratic socialism.
When I was in NYC sitting in the lobby of my hotel....a German couple was discussing “working conditions” in Germany compared to the US with a health care administrator. Over hearing the conversation.....I could describe it as a eulogy for the poor American worker.
Williamsmith
9-3-18, 7:11am
I think some guy named Karl Marx already weighed in on this one.
I must admit only a superficial understanding of Marx. But mentioning his name seems to provoke undue attention to ones private life rather than a discussion of his economics and philosophy. I think there is some truth to the fact that wealthy people tend to blame the poor for their status while influencing lawmakers to rig the system in their favor thus disadvantaging the hard working schmuck even more.
Chicken lady
9-3-18, 7:18am
We have family friends American/German couple who raised their daughters in Germany.
both girls came to the U.S. for college. Both married Americans. One is now a college professor in the U.S. with one young child. Her husband is nearing retirement age. They do not intend to have additional children. The other is a doctor with three children including twins. She and her husband - both in their 40s - relocated to Germany several years ago for better employment opportunities and better education and child care for their children. Even though he had to learn advanced German, take additional classes, retest for his medical license, and basically redo his residency. (She had been licensed in both countries)
flowerseverywhere
9-3-18, 7:24am
Watch the video, well worth it.
What I liked is he did not blame the left or the right, but all of the politicians and the fact that in our system they are all bought and paid for.
That stock market boom? Only half of adults have stock and are benefitting, and of course it is benefitting the richest disproportionally.
We spent the summer camping in the state and national parks in Kentucky, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Virginia and saw so many towns that have abandoned traditional stores, with a dollar general as their only option. Houses that are in obvious need of repair, old cars or trucks, few doctors in the area. A great swath of the working poor that have the nations lowest ranked schools, there is no way they have any means to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. And they are being demonized by our society.
But what is is the Solution? Have we gone too far?
Thank you for posting this.
Great video. He describes very lucidly how I see where we've come to at this point in our capitalist/free market history. It is not sustainable for the reasons he describes in the video. Even our measuring stick for economic health is faulty: The GDP.
WS, I also agree with all of your comments.
I'm not an economist, so I can't off-the-cuff say I have a solution, especially on only one cup of coffee, but I'd like to hear what others say while I mull over and research the answer.
I think workin' folks are f-cked.
End of story.
Thanks, Williamsmith, for posting this. It's excellent.
I'm not very smart with things like this, but for awhile, I've been asking "what happened to the rules to prevent monopolies?" What did happen to them?
Williamsmith
9-3-18, 10:15am
Thank you for posting this.
Great video. He describes very lucidly how I see where we've come to at this point in our capitalist/free market history. It is not sustainable for the reasons he describes in the video. Even our measuring stick for economic health is faulty: The GDP.
WS, I also agree with all of your comments.
I'm not an economist, so I can't off-the-cuff say I have a solution, especially on only one cup of coffee, but I'd like to hear what others say while I mull over and research the answer.
Ive had two cups of coffee and I still have no answer Catherine. Perhaps a different beverage is in order?
Well, Trump should be super delighted to watch this. It attacks Bezos, Obama, Walmart and WaPo, CIA - all those he has been unable to control.
Reality check!
Who wanted to dismantle the Obama care? not Bezos, Warren Buffett and others who are now trying to develop an affordable healthcare because the politicians in power wanted to destroy what was available.
Who decides how you spend your money - at the local store OR Amazon and Walmart?
Yes, the inequality is outrageous! There was this blip of time in human story when the worker after WW2 was able to earn a decent living as the country thrived and grew, workers were in great demand and paid a living wage.
From the downturn in the 70's wages have been stagnant while corporate profits soared benefiting those who were owners, CEO's and shareholders. Who created this situation? It isn't the current crop of billionaires but their predecessors with the support of politicians.
How many politicians of limited funds do you elect?
Don't be naive and accept the video as fact without doing a reality check into the real history and cause of the inequity. Are you going to demand that every movie star, every sports figure, every TV personality earning millions take a huge cut in pay? Why not? Why single out the few figures that Trump doesn't like? Why?
Williamsmith
9-3-18, 10:21am
I think workin' folks are f-cked.
End of story.
UL, I think you need to get on Amazon and order up a big box of sackcloth and ashes. You can’t have any left.
I prefer a more optimistic view. The workin folks will have it easier because they will be used to living in squalor. The rich will be soft and whiny when they can’t vacation at will. And I know they will hate the taste of “Great Value” food brands. The label should say, “Cheap Ass”.
But think of all the wealth the workin folks will be able to tap into. They will, because they will think it’s theirs anyway.
Watch the video, well worth it.
What I liked is he did not blame the left or the right, but all of the politicians and the fact that in our system they are all bought and paid for.
That stock market boom? Only half of adults have stock and are benefitting, and of course it is benefitting the richest disproportionally.
We spent the summer camping in the state and national parks in Kentucky, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Virginia and saw so many towns that have abandoned traditional stores, with a dollar general as their only option. Houses that are in obvious need of repair, old cars or trucks, few doctors in the area. A great swath of the working poor that have the nations lowest ranked schools, there is no way they have any means to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. And they are being demonized by our society.
But what is is the Solution? Have we gone too far?
I think these things need to happen:
1) campaign finance reform
2) repeal of law giving corporations same status as people
3) repeal of Citizens United
The corpocracy has overtaken our democracy and our legislators are beholden to them.
Williamsmith
9-3-18, 10:32am
Razz, we don’t have any local stores left. WalMart has come in an eliminated all their competition. And the taxpayers (walMarts patrons) are subsidizing their workers because they get paid crap wages with crap benefits....yet the owners of Wally World together are one of the richest families in world history. I do believe in bad karma.
That blip time in human history came after FDR put in massive government programs and according to some....”saved Capitalism from itself.” It was probably a time in history that most closely reflected what European lifestyle is today.
Your point about politicians with limited funds is applicable. If Trump were not so rich.....he could not have remained President this long.
I dont think this is clearly an attack on people Trump doesn’t like. I don’t get that vibe at all. In fact, if you follow the Jimmy Dore narrative you’ll see he is a Bernie supporter, not at all a hater of either Obama or Trump but perhaps a meaningful alternative to the left/alt right news forces available on cable and in print.
Ive had two cups of coffee and I still have no answer Catherine. Perhaps a different beverage is in order?
I'm for that! Cheers!
Williamsmith
9-3-18, 10:49am
I'm for that! Cheers!
I was digging through a small collection of records in a pizza shop owners back storage room the other day. The ovens were making it uncomfortable but I ran across this unique piece that I didn’t recognize. Bob Marley and the Wailers, “Survival”. It was cool looking and I thought for a couple bucks I’d take a flyer on it and grab it. Reggae is not something ai ever listened to but doing my research I think the theme of the record fits the bill today. So here’s to music from the oppressed peoples of the world!
https://youtu.be/Hqttcbv26jU
ApatheticNoMore
9-3-18, 12:51pm
Trump derangement syndrome. Now you can't even criticize Amazon (or the CIA I guess) without it really being about Trump. Not everything is about Trump.
Trump derangement syndrome. Now you can't even criticize Amazon (or the CIA I guess) without it really being about Trump. Not everything is about Trump.
Not really. Not intended that way. The financial inequality is very serious and needs to be addressed around the world.
What about the really rash idea of infrastructure investment to employ people long-term rather than the enormous cuts to taxes that benefit the very corporations that the video is targeting? The US taxpayer/citizen got the huge increase in the US deficit that will need to be addressed somehow but who will benefit the most from the cuts over the long-term?
I am not an accountant nor familiar with the US corporate tax law but how can one complain about untaxed profits of a corporation if the very system enables it to buy back shares and/or invest in more robotics with the consequences of those activities?
Wealth inequality.
Is "wealth" zero-sum?
I went out the other day and spent several hours picking blackberries in the woods. I harvested about 2 gallons of blackberries. I then spent about an hour in the kitchen and produced 5 wonderful blackberry pies, which sold at the market for $30/each. $150 of wealth.
Created how? I'm $150 richer now.
On the brink, no. I remember being scared by peak oil. Now I do not scare so easily. But collapse could come in the future.
Wealth inequality.
Is "wealth" zero-sum?
I went out the other day and spent several hours picking blackberries in the woods. I harvested about 2 gallons of blackberries. I then spent about an hour in the kitchen and produced 5 wonderful blackberry pies, which sold at the market for $30/each. $150 of wealth.
Created how? I'm $150 richer now.
Offside - at one time I lived next door to a neglected woodlot. For a few years before we moved away, I was able to pick gallons of blackberries which I made into jams, blackberry cordials etc which were wonderful. The neat feature was all the little critters that came to visit as I picked including little green tree frogs. Thanks for triggering that beautiful memory. $30 for a pie! Locally, they go for $15.
Back to the OP
Teacher Terry
9-3-18, 3:44pm
This is the reason universal income is being looked at. Much of my DIL’s family moved from Poland to Germany because of the job market and benefits. Just read a book about a journalist that worked low wage jobs and tried to rent a place to live and pay bills on that income. Very interesting. It is called nickeled and dimed.
I gave away all my extra peaches to whoever wanted them. Even now there are boxes full on the front lawn marked FREE. My neighbor said I should sell them but that didn't even occur to me.
iris lilies
9-3-18, 4:52pm
This is the reason universal income is being looked at. Much of my DIL’s family moved from Poland to Germany because of the job market and benefits. Just read a book about a journalist that worked low wage jobs and tried to rent a place to live and pay bills on that income. Very interesting. It is called nickeled and dimed.
We have discussed that book several times. The auhor made many stupid choices that poor people have said they would not make. Ldahl had some droll things to say about it, if I remember correctly.
I have read the book. In it and other other pieces she defended her smoking habit.
Teacher Terry
9-3-18, 5:07pm
At the end of the book she admits she made some bad choices which cost her big time. We never sell our extra fruit. We give it away and sometimes take it to one of the soup kitchens.
gimmethesimplelife
9-3-18, 6:56pm
I think many European countries are doing a good job of balancing capitalism with socialism or democratic socialism.Yes, indeed they are. My Homeland is a good example but there are many other good examples, too. Thank You btw for posting this and for understanding this - so many Americans are brainwashed by the system to accept things as they are so that the wealthy can get yet wealthier at the expense of everyone else. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-3-18, 6:57pm
When I was in NYC sitting in the lobby of my hotel....a German couple was discussing “working conditions” in Germany compared to the US with a health care administrator. Over hearing the conversation.....I could describe it as a eulogy for the poor American worker.Things really have sunk to this level in America in contrast with the many better countries. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-3-18, 6:58pm
I think workin' folks are f-cked.
End of story.Yes. Two bags packed at all times and save what money you can. Rob
Teacher Terry
9-3-18, 7:09pm
Since my DIL is from Poland I know a lot more about Europe than I previously did. The people that stayed in Poland didn’t do as well as those that left. However, they don’t have to worry about paying for health care but do have to worry if they ever need highly specialized care as I have mentioned before. Sylwia would be dead if she had not moved here.
Teacher Terry
9-3-18, 7:13pm
Also 2 people where I live making minimum wage can’t afford more than a studio apartment. Something is seriously wrong with this. A family now needs to make 80k/year to buy a house. The good paying unskilled jobs are gone and wages have not kept pace with prices. This is unsubstainable.
Also 2 people where I live making minimum wage can’t afford more than a studio apartment. Something is seriously wrong with this. A family now needs to make 80k/year to buy a house. The good paying unskilled jobs are gone and wages have not kept pace with prices. This is unsubstainable.
I heard a story once about interethnic tensions in Providence.
Black: How can you only be in this country a couple years and you have a car?
Asian-American: How can you live in this country your whole life and not have a car?
There are some lessons to be learned from immigrant communities about pooling resources and living intergenerationally that others may need to adopt as income inequality continues to rise. Some folks who can't even stand relatives visiting for a few days may become the exception rather than the norm.
Ive had two cups of coffee and I still have no answer Catherine. Perhaps a different beverage is in order?
I'm for that! Cheers!
I'm not one to judge people for a little day drinking. But 7am drinking??? :~)
ApatheticNoMore
9-4-18, 12:57am
There are some lessons to be learned from immigrant communities about pooling resources and living intergenerationally that others may need to adopt as income inequality continues to rise. Some folks who can't even stand relatives visiting for a few days may become the exception rather than the norm.
But sometimes there are no lessons and nothing to adapt, because one can't actually change one's relatives. Some relatives refuse to offer any help and never have and then they are what they are, people living on the streets have relatives too afterall.
Throwing people back on relatives at the very least multiplies dysfunction, because these least able to function in the world in most cases came from very dysfunctional places.
Teacher Terry
9-4-18, 2:10am
Every person or family needs to be able to rent a place to live.
We used to live the way immigrants do in this country. Read old census reports. Now it's nuclear families aspiring to McMansions with the elders in assisted living. My city is filled with triple deckers that are a hundred or more years old from when each generation had its own floor in a house. Recent immigrants are living in most of them because native born Americans are not interested. There are buildings you can buy for the cost of deleading them because they are not renteable. Now you won't have the modern amenities. Even my neighborhood from the 50's lacks central air in any of the houses.
I do support the recent increase in my state's minimum wage though I know rents will probably rise as well.
What worries me is that countries like ours on the decline tend to look to a political Strongman as their savior. It's happened in Russia, the Philippines, South America, etc. It's a panic reaction that gave us our current president.
I just hope common sense will prevail and we can forge a way forward together using facts and leave the hysteria aside.
Capitalism is on the brink of collapse. And it probably always will be.
Unless it gets regulated to the point of imbecility, price signals are still the best way to run an economy. It will adapt to technological and social changes. It just won’t be painless.
I'm not one to judge people for a little day drinking. But 7am drinking??? :~)
I belted back a bloody Mary at 8 am once, before boarding a plane. I felt very naughty. As they say "It's five o'clock somewhere." :D
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 11:04am
I do wonder if we are actually talking capitalism, or CONSUMErism?
I do wonder if we are actually talking capitalism, or CONSUMErism?
I’m pretty sure I know what “capitalism” means. I’m less sure I understand what we mean by “consumerism”. Too many people exercising too much choice in acquiring too much stuff?
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 11:33am
Capitalism and democracy seem to be linked together. After all, we are the poster child for a world where self interest reigns supreme. The capitalism I relate to revolves around people acting in self interest, competing against other people acting in their self interest. The person who produces a better product wins. The capitalism I see most reflected in our current version is self interest of one person at the expense of his/her neighbors. Capitalism in and of itself knows has no built in morality. Only the personal convictions of the human can limit the tendency of capitalists to take unfair advantage of others. Government steps in when humans discard their moral compass. When capitalism trespasses onto the property of exploitation, it needs to be expelled. Our brand of capitalism today seems to be, “Do unto others before they have a chance to do it unto you.” Adam Smith might be a little taken aback by the virulent type of capitalism we participate in these days.
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 1:02pm
I have to wonder how much self interest is actually acted in, when we the consumers, take in the barrage of commercials, that make people want to live in an unrealistic fashion, all while doing so under debt?
Worker's rights have taken a nose dive. Re: Walmart and trying to get a job there. You must be available 24/7 for a job that might give you 20 hrs a week.
And then if you do not work your scheduled shift you are dismissed after 3 times. So, you can not have another part time job. Welcome to modern day slavery folks.
Worker's rights have taken a nose dive. Re: Walmart and trying to get a job there. You must be available 24/7 for a job that might give you 20 hrs a week.
Do you have a "right" to work at Walmart?
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 1:50pm
Capitalism in and of itself knows has no built in morality.
Money is amoral as well, so do you want to get rid of that?
ApatheticNoMore
9-4-18, 1:59pm
walmart hires who they want and they will when laws protecting employees from such arbitrary on-call schedules are passed and enforced as well. nothing changes in having a right to work for walmart or not, just those who are employees of walmart then have more protections from arbitrary on call.
I don't believe for a moment that capitalism is on the brink of collapse, it is the one apolitical economic system that has provided the most benefit to the highest number of people than any other economic system the world has known.
The danger lies in the growing number of people who misunderstand economics and insist on changing to a system that guarantees rewards not just to those who work diligently at creating wealth but also to those who make no viable effort at all.
Capitalism is the natural state of a long term healthy economy, we should be encouraging it rather than thinking up ways to subvert it, and being the optimist that I am, I believe reason will always overcome emotion in important matters.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 2:59pm
Money is amoral as well, so do you want to get rid of that?
Im not aware that anyone has yet mentioned getting rid of Capitalism in this thread...unless I missed it.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 3:04pm
Do you have a "right" to work at Walmart?
A better question for many people would be....do they have the choice?
A better question for many people would be....do they have the choice?
We seem to have no Walmarts in my county, and our land use codes seem to forbid the construction of anything similar.
#resist
ApatheticNoMore
9-4-18, 3:15pm
A better question for many people would be....do they have the choice?
well I don't think anyone who has much of a choice would choose that type of utterly unpredictable schedule (granted there might be worse, it is true). Because it precisely forbids working diligently and forces one into making little viable effort at all beyond just surviving. That is you can't even try to improve yourself in any way if it precludes any possible means of doing so due to scheduling such as getting a second job (or likely even looking for a better job, can't do that under that unpredictable a schedule), getting any further education or training etc..
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 3:15pm
I don't believe for a moment that capitalism is on the brink of collapse, it is the one apolitical economic system that has provided the most benefit to the highest number of people than any other economic system the world has known.
The danger lies in the growing number of people who misunderstand economics and insist on changing to a system that guarantees rewards not just to those who work diligently at creating wealth but also to those who make no viable effort at all.
Capitalism is the natural state of a long term healthy economy, we should be encouraging it rather than thinking up ways to subvert it, and being the optimist that I am, I believe reason will always overcome emotion in important matters.
I don’t know how capitalism can be described as “apolitical” without taking into account that successful capitalists are successful political lobbyists.
Alan, do you really believe that anyone who criticizes capitalism is trying to usher in socialism or another defined anti capitalist economic system? Isn’t there room for fine tuning abuses to capitalism? After all, this country is not a purely capitalistic economic powerhouse.
In 1929 we had a nice healthy long term economy going with some fine wealthy capitalists until we didn’t. I think there’s disagreement about whether we understand that any change is trying to help the patient or trying to kill the patient.
Why are emotions always mentioned? If it isnt to paint a picture of the other side being less rational and therefore unable to reasonably access a situation.
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 3:30pm
Im not aware that anyone has yet mentioned getting rid of Capitalism in this thread...unless I missed it.
Your questioning things that have no morals and are tools, instead of questioning the users of them. Seems the same as blaming guns instead of the shooters, or pencils instead of the bad spellers.
Teacher Terry
9-4-18, 3:41pm
Presently the way we are operating now is not sustainable in the long term. Either we need to pay a fair wage for unskilled work or we need universal income. People are sick of being poor and it’s one reason people voted for trump.
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 3:52pm
Because no one has ever been sick of being poor before in this country or any other?>8)
What defines what is "fair"? How does the evolving definition of poverty, middle class, etc. affect that? (I remember poverty as having no air conditioning, refrigeration, or a tv at one point, where phones were shared/party lines)
Teacher Terry
9-4-18, 3:55pm
In the 1950’s unskilled workers could support their families on one income.
In the 1950’s unskilled workers could support their families on one income.
Could you show us the math on that?
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 4:28pm
Your questioning things that have no morals and are tools, instead of questioning the users of them. Seems the same as blaming guns instead of the shooters, or pencils instead of the bad spellers.
This is a direct quote from me in post #43
“Capitalism in and of itself knows has no built in morality. Only the personal convictions of the human can limit the tendency of capitalists to take unfair advantage of others.”
Unless I’m missing something again....It’s exactly the opposite of how you just characterized me. I’m not questioning anything but the users.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 4:31pm
Because no one has ever been sick of being poor before in this country or any other?>8)
What defines what is "fair"? How does the evolving definition of poverty, middle class, etc. affect that? (I remember poverty as having no air conditioning, refrigeration, or a tv at one point, where phones were shared/party lines)
Then I take it, you’d be alright if someone paid $5 an hour as long as people could have a roof over their head, a block of ice and maybe a fiddle to entertain themselves with.....cause I can take you to certain places in West Virginia and you could explain to them your concept of fair.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 4:34pm
Could you show us the math on that?
My entire extended family produced steel and supported their two or three kids on the old man’s wages. But no air conditioning, carpet or cable tv. I will admit to that.
I think many of us who grew up in the 1950s recall a time when many moms stayed home and Dad had a job that could support the family. It seemed like most of us were middle class rather than the sharp divides seen today. My mom worked as she was the oddball who got divorced in 1964 but even with that, she was able to buy a house and send three kids to college on a starting salary of around $6K a year and ending at $27K when she retired years later. I don't know what the answer is today but it doesn't feel/seem like the future will be bright for a majority Americans.
My entire extended family produced steel and supported their two or three kids on the old man’s wages. But no air conditioning, carpet or cable tv. I will admit to that.
Were those unskilled non-union steel jobs? Any idea what they paid?
In the 1950’s unskilled workers could support their families on one income.Maybe in your neck of the woods they could, but in mine it was another story. I always get a kick out hearing people who grew up in the middle class talk about how it was for everyone, without even seeming to realize their error.
I know I've mentioned this before but when I grew up in the 50's and 60's, extreme poverty was the only thing I, my extended family and everyone we knew had ever experienced. But my first hand experience showed me that every one of us with the desire to do so could do much better than those who came before us, and that those without the desire to do so did not. Some people happily follow the path of least resistance without regard to the long term effects. Capitalism and Free Markets allowed us to prosper or not, depending upon our motivations. I see nothing in our current climate that changes anyone else's ability to do the same.
Alan, do you really believe that anyone who criticizes capitalism is trying to usher in socialism or another defined anti capitalist economic system? …..
…..Why are emotions always mentioned?
As for the first question, socialism always comes up in these discussions as an alternative to our current system.
The other thing that always comes up is income inequality and the inference that it must be eliminated and is a danger to our country and society. Well, in reality it's only a danger to our society if we can convince enough people that the wealthy are taking away what is rightfully theirs and encourage a form of government (socialism) which will pillage the successful in order to prop up the less successful. The rational view is to encourage and support the less successful as they aspire to be more successful as this keeps everyone motivated to improve. The emotional view takes away the motivation but does provide immediate gratification, which is not sustainable. That's why I mention it.
People do not like that the next generation will do as well as they did, among other things because life expectancies are falling. But things can't go up forever and I think most people realize this. Revolutions actually are more common in times of rising expectations that are not met or not met quickly enough. With falling expectations there is greater risk of fascism and other reactionary regimes as people hunker down in fear and resentment.
The other thing that always comes up is income inequality and the inference that it must be eliminated and is a danger to our country and society.
So I'm thinking I should only bake enough pies for myself then. Seems it'd be fairer to the other folks.
Teacher Terry
9-4-18, 6:22pm
Unskilled factory jobs paid a living wage in the 1950’s in Wisconsin. Not everyone is capable of attaining higher education to obtain a good job. Look at the bell curve. Also many people with degrees don’t have good jobs. Many jobs don’t exist due to automation. Driving jobs support a ton of people and eventually those will be gone with self driving vehicles. Just one example of technology eliminating jobs.
Just one example of technology eliminating jobs.And creating new ones.
So I'm thinking I should only bake enough pies for myself then. Seems it'd be fairer to the other folks.That's one option, but I think the more popular one is to regulate your ability to sell them at a price point that makes it worthwhile for you to do so while simultaneously encouraging you to increase your output to ensure those without the proper skill set or motivation may benefit from your labors. Everyone has a basic human right to a good pie.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 8:40pm
Were those unskilled non-union steel jobs? Any idea what they paid?
I don’t know what it paid, but I do know the hospital bill when I was born was $27 and that included the drugs for mom. And now that I think of it I recall mom saying dad brought home about $90 a month. So I’m guessing it cost dad about ten days pay for the birth of his favorite son. I put the “favorite” thing in.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 8:52pm
As for the first question, socialism always comes up in these discussions as an alternative to our current system.
The other thing that always comes up is income inequality and the inference that it must be eliminated and is a danger to our country and society. Well, in reality it's only a danger to our society if we can convince enough people that the wealthy are taking away what is rightfully theirs and encourage a form of government (socialism) which will pillage the successful in order to prop up the less successful. The rational view is to encourage and support the less successful as they aspire to be more successful as this keeps everyone motivated to improve. The emotional view takes away the motivation but does provide immediate gratification, which is not sustainable. That's why I mention it.
Alan, there is certainly a truth to your hard work begats success storyline but it is not the only method of creating success or wealth or prosperity. Organized Crime is certainly successful, prosperous and creates wealth but I trust you wouldn’t complain if government stepped in and defined their form of capitalism as unfair and regulated it via prosecution. What’s a danger to our country is the “successful, prosperous, wealth creating” companies and persons masquerading as honest capitalists but who create their own paths of opportunity not by innovation and hard work but by political backroom good ole greasing of palms and offers politicians can’t refuse. Now can’t we agree that if we can target organized crime....we can target white collar crime?
Now can’t we agree that if we can target organized crime....we can target white collar crime?
Sure, but I'm not of the mindset that white collar crime is rampant enough to bring capitalism to the brink of collapse any more than organized crime will corrupt all of society.
Because no one has ever been sick of being poor before in this country or any other?>8)
What defines what is "fair"? How does the evolving definition of poverty, middle class, etc. affect that? (I remember poverty as having no air conditioning, refrigeration, or a tv at one point, where phones were shared/party lines)
Of course the definition of poverty evolves. That's been the case since the start of the industrial revolution. Once upon a time even rich people didn't have central heat or flush toilets. The difference between them and poor people was that they had servants to carry coal or wood to all the rooms, come in the middle of the night to restoke the fires and empty chamberpots in the morning. Today one would struggle to even be able to participate in our economy, search for jobs, etc, without an internet connection and a cell phone, unheard of luxuries not very long ago.
My father grew up in a house without running water in the 30's/40's. While his family was definitely poor my grandfather was able to support himself, 3 kids, a wife in a tuberculosis hospital and his aged MIL and polio-stricken FIL on one non-union job in a foundry. Perhaps the people in Teacher Terry's city who are struggling to find affordable housing just need to look for listings of houses with outhouses and a hand water pump in the yard. Surely they'd be less expensive. And since indoor plumbing was once a luxury they could surely learn to be happy without it.
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 11:36pm
More on the dust up between Amazon and Bernie Sanders. This is going to be part of the narrative going into the mid terms and beyond into the 2020 Presidential Election. I don’t think at this point it is at all unthinkable that Sanders might make another run at the Democratic Primary and this time his opponent won’t be rigging it against him. If Trump is either removed or screws up by entering into a foolish war or the economy tanks .... look out. Capitalism will receive an oil change, a tune up and a tire rotation.
https://youtu.be/dpnEKp_DcSg
Teacher Terry
9-4-18, 11:48pm
One can only hope!
ToomuchStuff
9-5-18, 1:50am
Then I take it, you’d be alright if someone paid $5 an hour as long as people could have a roof over their head, a block of ice and maybe a fiddle to entertain themselves with.....cause I can take you to certain places in West Virginia and you could explain to them your concept of fair.
That sounds like that is your idea of fair, so who made your idea the "fair" idea?
Teacher Terry
9-5-18, 2:02am
I didn’t watch the video. My idea of fair was for Bernie to be president.,
My idea of fair is to give reasonable concern to the people you are hiring/exploiting for profit. When pursuit of profit is at the expense of the people it is not fair. When Phillip Morris lies to consumers and knowingly puts people at risk of death so they can make their shareholders happy, that's not fair. When a multinational coffee corporation goes into an indigenous country, strips the people of their autonomy and rapes their land so they can make their shareholders happy, that's not fair. When Amazon hires people a "full-time" wage that falls below the amount needed to earn a living wage by any objective measure* so they can make shareholders happy, that's not fair.
Capitalism is amoral, but a problem is the foundation it rests on: the need to feed the money engine at all costs. All that matters in capitalism is building capital by value extraction in terms of people and natural resources. That's why we need some self-regulation of capitalism to keep in check. It's hard to say the nature of capitalism is "greed" but the substantial raison d'être of capitalism is wealth production with no ceiling, so it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of collateral damage in its path. It's a hungry wolf.
If Bae's Baked Goods Company were serving the public delicious pies and there was money exchanged for a service received in simple form, that's awesome. No problem. If all of a sudden Bae's Baked Goods had an IPO and all of a sudden he had thousands of people demanding high return on their investments, and millions of consumers were demanding bae's pies, bae would be tempted to extract as much as he could from his employees (low wages, long hours) so that he could satisfy all the people who put their life savings into Bae's Baked Goods Company and he would want to sell as many pies as he could.
That's just how it works. It's the nature of the beast.
I know bae would be a beneficent business owner and all his employees would love him and he would have very low turnover. He would motivate many to climb the ladder of opportunity as he had. But we need to ensure that the system is calibrated to foster more bae's and fewer Bezoses.
*http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/34023. Calculations of living wage in my county in New Jersey.
I am admiring the articulate explanation of the differing views being expressed. Interesting reading so thank you.
ApatheticNoMore
9-5-18, 8:02am
It's hard to say the nature of capitalism is "greed" but the substantial raison d'être of capitalism is wealth production with no ceiling, so it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of collateral damage in its path.
it's as much fear as it is greed, sometimes smaller players (small business owners etc.) have to act that way (of course a lot of other things can also enter in, there is always the boss who treats their employees badly just because they can, even when it provides no benefit to do so, just because they are personality disordered, but that's not entirely a systematic issue). But anyway, decent regulation when it is enforced (like some labor protections) actually levels the playing field here and makes it easier to do the right thing which might be what many actually want to do anyway.
With bezos your talking true monopoply/oligopoly type power though so it's kind of it's own thing, with that type of power you are pretty shielded from much competition anyway, so you really aren't doing what you do just to keep up with competition.
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 12:44pm
Depending on your viewpoint, there seems to be two primary opinions about Capitalism.
One, that capitalism when left to free market principles and not interfered with is the best hope of relieving poverty and improving the standard of living for all. That the war on poverty in the US has been an utter failure is emblematic of a Government too restrictive on capitalists.
Or two, Capitalism is exploitative of workers and naturally creates wealth inequality. That the existence of poverty in the US is proof that even though corporations and capitalists have had free reign with lobbying and reinvestment of capital to make more capital....the poor are still languishing and the gap between the elite rich and the poorest is growing.
Welfare is necessarily a part of the system as it stands. But is it finally time, after all these years from Thomas Paine to Milton Friedman to Robert Reich, for a Guaranteed National Income to replace the current cobbled together behemoth we refer to as the Welfare State?
Could we convince the capitalists to go along with a progressive tax that would be enough to enable the country to redistribute wealth in a manner that would provide each citizen no matter what their status and ability, a guaranteed annual income paid in cash and substantial enough to ensure a decent existence? Are we innovative and bold enough? Or will capitalists fight to preserve their wealth even in the face of a growing distrust of their benevolence and intentions? Will capitalism survive as it is or can it be redefined as a moral tool to lift the more unfortunate in a way that hasn’t yet been accomplished.
Capitalism is inherently NOT benevolent.
Capitalism is inherently NOT benevolent.
Neither is the wheel. That doesn't mean its a bad idea.
"Government of the shareholders, by the shareholders, and for the shareholders" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Even if it's more accurate in today's America.
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 1:56pm
Neither is the wheel. That doesn't mean its a bad idea.
I was always convinced the wheel was a great idea until one day I went down a particularly steep and winding hill on my bicycle.....and lost my brakes.
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 1:58pm
"Government of the shareholders, by the shareholders, and for the shareholders" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Even if it's more accurate in today's America.
Yes, the share holders probably hold shares in more than just their own wealth. Probably.
I was always convinced the wheel was a great idea until one day I went down a particularly steep and winding hill on my bicycle.....and lost my brakes.
Unfettered wheels have brought our country to the brink of collapse.
Williamsmith
9-7-18, 2:07pm
Unfettered wheels have brought our country to the brink of collapse.
Yes, it’s better to burn out than it is to rust. Somebody from Canada once said.....
Yes, it’s better to burn out than it is to rust. Somebody from Canada once said.....
I understand he’s actually older than the wheel.
Depending on your viewpoint, there seems to be two primary opinions about Capitalism.
One, that capitalism when left to free market principles and not interfered with is the best hope of relieving poverty and improving the standard of living for all. That the war on poverty in the US has been an utter failure is emblematic of a Government too restrictive on capitalists.
Or two, Capitalism is exploitative of workers and naturally creates wealth inequality. That the existence of poverty in the US is proof that even though corporations and capitalists have had free reign with lobbying and reinvestment of capital to make more capital....the poor are still languishing and the gap between the elite rich and the poorest is growing.
Welfare is necessarily a part of the system as it stands. But is it finally time, after all these years from Thomas Paine to Milton Friedman to Robert Reich, for a Guaranteed National Income to replace the current cobbled together behemoth we refer to as the Welfare State?
Could we convince the capitalists to go along with a progressive tax that would be enough to enable the country to redistribute wealth in a manner that would provide each citizen no matter what their status and ability, a guaranteed annual income paid in cash and substantial enough to ensure a decent existence? Are we innovative and bold enough? Or will capitalists fight to preserve their wealth even in the face of a growing distrust of their benevolence and intentions? Will capitalism survive as it is or can it be redefined as a moral tool to lift the more unfortunate in a way that hasn’t yet been accomplished.
I think it’s only necessary to look at the recently passed tax law to get the answer as to whether capitalists will agree to any plan to help anyone besides themselves. Nothing will change until guillotines v 2.0.
Williamsmith
9-8-18, 7:41am
I think it’s only necessary to look at the recently passed tax law to get the answer as to whether capitalists will agree to any plan to help anyone besides themselves. Nothing will change until guillotines v 2.0.
I believe that the Guaranteed National Income is actually the Achilles heel of the current version of capitalism. This is an idea that has been discussed, in theory by liberals and conservatives alike. Some form of it was actually ready in Nixon’s Administration but the Vietnam War took over the narrative and it was never seriously considered again. Getting to the practicality of the idea will require a politician pushing for implementation. The only person with enough juice that comes to mind is Bernie Sanders.
I believe that the Guaranteed National Income is actually the Achilles heel of the current version of capitalism. This is an idea that has been discussed, in theory by liberals and conservatives alike. Some form of it was actually ready in Nixon’s Administration but the Vietnam War took over the narrative and it was never seriously considered again. Getting to the practicality of the idea will require a politician pushing for implementation. The only person with enough juice that comes to mind is Bernie Sanders.
Has anyone looked at the numbers? I believe there are approximately 250 million adults in the United States, if we gave each a Guaranteed National Income of $1000 per month that would equal 3 Trillion dollars per year. That is the same approximate cost of all current welfare and entitlement programs. So, if we eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., it would be a wash. The question is, which is better for the overall health of the country?
Teacher Terry
9-8-18, 11:46am
You can’t do away with SS. Maybe we can repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to get some of the money.
You can’t do away with SS. Maybe we can repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to get some of the money.By my off the cuff mental math that's approximately one trillion dollars in new taxation. Is that doable?
Ultralight
9-8-18, 12:31pm
By my off the cuff mental math that's approximately one trillion dollars in new taxation. Is that doable?
Tax rich people. Other first world, stable nations do it. You know this. Your opposition to taxing rich people is ideological, not based on whether or not it works.
Sling some capitalist apologetics at us now. Defend the faith! lol
iris lilies
9-8-18, 12:49pm
Tax rich people. Other first world, stable nations do it. You know this. Your opposition to taxing rich people is ideological, not based on whether or not it works.
Sling some capitalist apologetics at us now. Defend the faith! lol
The super rich, less than 5% of the population, already pay more than 50% of taxes in the United States.
Why isn’t that enough for you? That seems like a ton to me, They are doing the heavy lifting already.
Tax rich people. Other first world, stable nations do it. You know this. Your opposition to taxing rich people is ideological, not based on whether or not it works.
Sling some capitalist apologetics at us now. Defend the faith! lolYou're right, I'm not in favor of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I think we're better than that.
Ultralight
9-8-18, 12:52pm
The super rich, less than 5% of the population, already pay more than 50% of taxes in the United States.
Why isn’t that enough for you? That seems like a ton to me, They are doing the heavy lifting already.
It'll be enough when they have paid for excellent public schools and excellent public healthcare for all. Maybe. We might want a few other things too.
But don't worry. That stuff will never come to pass in the USA.
Ultralight
9-8-18, 12:53pm
You're right, I'm not in favor of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I think we're better than that.
False equivalency. And merely an appeal to a maxim. Not very well-thought out, Alan. I expected better of you.
False equivalency. And merely an appeal to a maxim. Not very well-thought out, Alan. I expected better of you.Sorry to disappoint, maybe you could explain to me how taking from the minority to give to the majority is a false equivalency to your suggestion that we merely tax the rich more in order to pay for giveaways.
Ultralight
9-8-18, 12:56pm
Let's say there are about 250 million people in the US. How much would each person have to pay to raise 1 trillion dollars over the course of one year?
Ultralight
9-8-18, 12:57pm
Sorry to disappoint, maybe you could explain to me how taking from the minority to give to the majority is a false equivalency to your suggestion that we merely tax the rich more in order to pay for giveaways.
Is Peter really, really, really rich?
Ultralight
9-8-18, 12:59pm
Jacques Ellul described a person whose mind has been completely taken over by an ideology as a "creature of propaganda." This might be worth meditating on, Alan.
ToomuchStuff
9-8-18, 1:06pm
Capitalism is amoral, but a problem is the foundation it rests on: the need to feed the money engine at all costs. All that matters in capitalism is building capital by value extraction in terms of people and natural resources. That's why we need some self-regulation of capitalism to keep in check. It's hard to say the nature of capitalism is "greed" but the substantial raison d'être of capitalism is wealth production with no ceiling, so it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of collateral damage in its path. It's a hungry wolf.
I disagree on the "need to feed the money engine at all costs". Your mixing capitalism, with the person, a capitalist. who has the value of greed. There are business owners who do want profit, but do not want to "feed the money engine at all costs" as they value other things (time/family/their competition, etc). You could also get a person who chose to be amoral and goes after his bit of profit in ways some would find immoral, and others would not. Or you can get those who would rather use tech (advertising, big data, etc), to study and go after ALL the profit they can, while manipulating their environments to try to increase their future potential.
Depending on your viewpoint, there seems to be two primary opinions about Capitalism.
One, that capitalism when left to free market principles and not interfered with is the best hope of relieving poverty and improving the standard of living for all. That the war on poverty in the US has been an utter failure is emblematic of a Government too restrictive on capitalists.
Or two, Capitalism is exploitative of workers and naturally creates wealth inequality. That the existence of poverty in the US is proof that even though corporations and capitalists have had free reign with lobbying and reinvestment of capital to make more capital....the poor are still languishing and the gap between the elite rich and the poorest is growing.
Welfare is necessarily a part of the system as it stands. But is it finally time, after all these years from Thomas Paine to Milton Friedman to Robert Reich, for a Guaranteed National Income to replace the current cobbled together behemoth we refer to as the Welfare State?
Could we convince the capitalists to go along with a progressive tax that would be enough to enable the country to redistribute wealth in a manner that would provide each citizen no matter what their status and ability, a guaranteed annual income paid in cash and substantial enough to ensure a decent existence? Are we innovative and bold enough? Or will capitalists fight to preserve their wealth even in the face of a growing distrust of their benevolence and intentions? Will capitalism survive as it is or can it be redefined as a moral tool to lift the more unfortunate in a way that hasn’t yet been accomplished.
Wealth inequality is not the fault of capitalism. Socialism and Communism have that as well. Other factors will/do play into that such as health, values and the choices because of them, etc. Redistribution of wealth, isn't what a lot of people wish to believe it is. Taking "wealth" from someone who has it, will not cause either less fortunate, unlucky, or lazy people to become wealthy, while it may affect their income. Wealth is built by spending less out, then you have coming in and using that to generate more coming in, from other sources.
You want a "fair system", in a world where life isn't fair, your going to have to eliminate gender/color/values, etc. etc. etc.
Has anyone looked at the numbers? I believe there are approximately 250 million adults in the United States, if we gave each a Guaranteed National Income of $1000 per month that would equal 3 Trillion dollars per year. That is the same approximate cost of all current welfare and entitlement programs. So, if we eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., it would be a wash. The question is, which is better for the overall health of the country?
That income would drive up the poverty rate of those on Social security and Medicare/medicaid, as isn't the average per month more then that?
Let's say there are about 250 million people in the US. How much would each person have to pay to raise 1 trillion dollars over the course of one year?There's your false equivalency, there are approximately 250 million adults in the US, of those, approximately 115 million currently pay no federal income taxes and under our progressive system I see no interest in changing that. Now we're down to approximately 135 million people who would be required to make up the shortfall to the tune of approximately $7500 per adult taxpayer. That would mean an increase of $15000 per two adult household which would still be a net gain if each two adult household received the $24000 guaranteed income, although I suspect that due to the nature of our politics someone would decide that the 55% or so of adults who actually pay federal taxes would be exempt from the guaranteed income which would result in changing the nature of the Universal guaranteed income to something along the lines of an enhanced earned income credit.
There's your false equivalency, there are approximately 250 million adults in the US, of those, approximately 115 million currently pay no federal income taxes and under our progressive system I see no interest in changing that. Now we're down to approximately 135 million people who would be required to make up the shortfall to the tune of approximately $7500 per adult taxpayer. That would mean an increase of $15000 per two adult household which would still be a net gain if each two adult household received the $24000 guaranteed income, although I suspect that due to the nature of our politics someone would decide that the 55% or so of adults who actually pay federal taxes would be exempt from the guaranteed income which would result in changing the nature of the Universal guaranteed income to something along the lines of an enhanced earned income credit.
You clearly don't now what a false equivalency is. Quick, google it.
Also: I am not suggesting that every tax payer pay the same amount. I suggest that Peter, who is very rich, pay a lot more than Paul, who is just a workin' schlub.
You clearly don't now what a false equivalency is. Quick, google it.
Also: I am not suggesting that every tax payer pay the same amount. I suggest that Peter, who is very rich, pay a lot more than Paul, who is just a workin' schlub.
That's not what you asked, I gave you the numbers you requested along with a possible real world effect. If you disagree, just say so and perhaps contribute to the discussion.
iris lilies
9-8-18, 1:30pm
It'll be enough when they have paid for excellent public schools and excellent public healthcare for all. Maybe. We might want a few other things too.
But don't worry. That stuff will never come to pass in the USA.
About “excellent” schools—ok. When the students at these schools become “excellent” candidates for learning, I will support the richest making even more of a controbution*
This means that parents need to get up in the morning, feed their children breakfast, see that their children gather their belongings and completed homework, be dressed and rested and ready for the day, and simultaneously support the goals of their neighborhood education factory. They need to highly value this publicly funded education and see it for the opportunity it is, and demonstrate that valuing with actions that include the above as well as staying connected to teachers, monitoring their children’s activities in school, contributing in all of tha eays parents are expected to contribute.
Yeah, when that all happens I will pay more in taxes. And you are right, none of that I wrote about will happen.
* schools are locally supported with (usually) real estate taxes and are not part of the “less than 5% pay more than 50%” idea because that is for income taxes.
ToomuchStuff
9-8-18, 1:35pm
You clearly don't now what a false equivalency is. Quick, google it.
Also: I am not suggesting that every tax payer pay the same amount. I suggest that Peter, who is very rich, pay a lot more than Paul, who is just a workin' schlub.
Need to be very careful here, especially with wording. Politicians do that all the time.
It can be shown that the Peter IS paying more then Paul, but still paying a lower percentage, because of where the income comes from.
I expect there could be a lot more fun with that, with Roth IRA's.
Good thing people like Alan and Iris Lilies stand up for the rich! Otherwise poor people and the Bernie Sanderses of the world would bully them and steal their yacht money! LOL
IL you know some parents are just not capable of that, and the children did not choose their parents and should not suffer. But do not worry, I have a revenue stream in mind.
I propose we soak the rich with luxury taxes. Any flight departing to or arriving from an international destination such as Israel, Uruguay, Cuba, Iceland or southeast Asia should have a $5000.00 tax on each passenger each way. That would raise a lot of money.
IL you know some parents are just not capable of that, and the children did not choose their parents and should not suffer.But do not worry, I have a revenue stream in mind.
I propose we soak the rich with luxury taxes. Any flight departing to or arriving from an international destination such as Israel, Uruguay, Cuba, Iceland or southeast Asia should have a $5000.00 tax on each passenger each way. That would raise a lot of money.
And she is back at it! LOL
Keep fighting the good fight, Jeppy!
I got a 2.67% raise at work. I am officially a $50,000aire.
Want to know why I got the raise? Merit. ;)
Good thing people like Alan and Iris Lilies stand up for the rich! Otherwise poor people and the Bernie Sanderses of the world would bully them and steal their yacht money! LOL
You know that's almost word for word one of my recent messages from littlebittybobby. Hmmm....
ToomuchStuff
9-8-18, 1:47pm
IL you know some parents are just not capable of that, and the children did not choose their parents and should not suffer. But do not worry, I have a revenue stream in mind.
I propose we soak the rich with luxury taxes. Any flight departing to or arriving from an international destination such as Israel, Uruguay, Cuba, Iceland or southeast Asia should have a $5000.00 tax on each passenger each way. That would raise a lot of money.
LOL, or cause the rich to drive over the Canada/Mexico, take a boat to Cuba, etc. and fly from there.:laff:
All while, the rich celebrity coming over to sings, raised ticket prices enough so the average persons ticket goes up. (gets passed on to those with lesser income)
LOL, or cause the rich to drive over the Canada/Mexico, take a boat to Cuba, etc. and fly from there.:laff:
All while, the rich celebrity coming over to sings, raised ticket prices enough so the average persons ticket goes up. (gets passed on to those with lesser income)
If the economy can be rigged to benefit the wealthy, could it not be rigged to benefit working families?
Really, Alan and Iris, no need to worry or be bothered at all. You guys have this thing in the bag. There will be no Bernie style revolution or policy changes in that direction. This game is all played out. You won the trophy.
Good thing people like Alan and Iris Lilies stand up for the rich! Otherwise poor people and the Bernie Sanderses of the world would bully them and steal their yacht money! LOL
The tax imposed to bully rich people and tax their yachts and airplanes in the 1990s pretty much destroyed the US yacht building industry (and much of the private aircraft industry). It put thousands of people out of jobs in my area of the country, and our boatbuilding industry here has not yet recovered. It raised very little money, but sure signaled virtue, at the expense of jobs and local economies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c2972800377d
You know that's almost word for word one of my recent messages from littlebittybobby. Hmmm....
Indeed.
I propose we soak the rich with luxury taxes. Any flight departing to or arriving from an international destination such as Israel, Uruguay, Cuba, Iceland or southeast Asia should have a $5000.00 tax on each passenger each way. That would raise a lot of money.
Hilarious.
Really, Alan and Iris, no need to worry or be bothered at all. You guys have this thing in the bag. There will be no Bernie style revolution or policy changes in that direction. This game is all played out. You won the trophy.
Oh? Was there a contest?
Perhaps you could have gotten a participation trophy for yourself although I'm not sure heckling from the sidelines qualifies.
LOL, or cause the rich to drive over the Canada/Mexico, take a boat to Cuba, etc. and fly from there.:laff:
All while, the rich celebrity coming over to sings, raised ticket prices enough so the average persons ticket goes up. (gets passed on to those with lesser income)
Watch out with the boat. There are already luxury taxes on yachts, because some forms of overprivilege are sanctioned by limousine liberals and some are not. Yachts get bashed a lot.
ToomuchStuff
9-8-18, 2:36pm
If the economy can be rigged to benefit the wealthy, could it not be rigged to benefit working families?
I don't see how?:confused:
The wealthy would then just buy off the working families, if they weren't working themselves. (not sure how many leisurely rich there are, as most still work, just don't have to "work for the man")
Teacher Terry
9-8-18, 2:59pm
Yes the system is rigged for the rich. When there is no more middle class people will revolt.
When there is no more middle class people will revolt.
That is my concern too. Disgruntled humans can do horrible things.
Williamsmith
9-8-18, 10:56pm
Can we agree the current way we address poverty in the US ...through layered welfare programs.....isn’t working. You’ve got temporary assistance for needy families, food stamps or SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, women Infants and Children (WIC), energy assistance (LIHEAP), and general freebies. In most states, it all adds up to more than a minimum wage job. In some states it adds up to more than a $15-$20/hr job.
Even poor people aren’t stupid enough to leave welfare for a job that pays less. Especially, if they lose their Medicaid coverage. It demonstrates just how hard it is for the poor to escape the system. And not only does the system work against them, it also provides an opportunity for wealthy or secure people to suggest the poor are lazy because they won’t get a job.
We have applied an anti poverty program for our citizens that does nothing to lift people out of poverty. That’s a system that needs to be replaced. There is only one way to accomplish the guaranteed national income and that is a significant tax increase.
Tax rich people. Other first world, stable nations do it. You know this. Your opposition to taxing rich people is ideological, not based on whether or not it works.
Sling some capitalist apologetics at us now. Defend the faith! lol
They also tax everyone else. There simply aren't enough rich people to find Utopia on their own.
iris lilies
9-8-18, 11:18pm
Really, Alan and Iris, no need to worry or be bothered at all. You guys have this thing in the bag. There will be no Bernie style revolution or policy changes in that direction. This game is all played out. You won the trophy.
Oh yay, we are the Champions! Of the World! Or maybe we are Sparticus!
I think part of the problem with all the various programs that Williamsmith mentions is that no one consulted an economist when designing them. As WS points out, an economically rational person isn't going to get a job if it means having less income. If we actually want people to work we should design these programs so that benefits go down gradually as a person's earned income increases. We do that with the EITC so you'd think we could do that with SNAP or any of the others. Or if we decide to replace all of them with something new we need to use the same concept when setting benefit levels. Otherwise we'll have the same problem, just with a simpler structure.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 10:17am
Snap does go down as you earn more. Few people sit home on a welfare check like the old days. By the time your child is one they have work requirements, pay for daycare and get people working. People without kids get general assistance which is 200/month for 3 months maximum. Yes some people with disabilities are sitting home not working but that is because they are too disabled to work. Working poor can get Medicaid.
I have a relative who has both a long-time mental illness and a chronic progressive physical illness. Has been hospitalized multiple times for the physical condition. Lives in a group home, has been on Social Security disability and Medicaid for many years. Medicaid recently insisted he needed to get a job - any job, "could be dog-walking" - for him to continue receiving benefits.
Fortunately they backed off after the intervention of his parent who is a medical professional and his legal guardian.
So this is what we've come to in the richest country in the world.
But the fun continues: Medicaid likes to change approved providers, and this year's HMO has a restriction - only noted deep into its lengthy paperwork - that recipients can only receive payment for 6 prescriptions. My relative takes 9. When is this punishment of our most vulnerable human beings going to end?
Williamsmith
9-9-18, 10:38am
The basic underlying theory to replacing the welfare system as it is ....is that the current system discourages recipients from searching for a job. They spend their time scheming how to obtain the maximum benefits and those benefits are linked to their status as an unemployed person. There is ample evidence since we have added layers and layers of assistance, that this has not only disincentivized individuals....it has become a lifestyle that people teach their children.
A more efficient and common sense approach would be a guaranteed basic income that is near poverty level. Enough to keep a person from being overwhelmed by the cost of living but not so much that people will check out of the workforce and decide to live a minimalist life of relative comfort. This would not have to be tied to a system like the IRS to maintain oversight on a person’s income. However, large families would seem to benefit and so the dgradual reduction that jp1 mentions would have to be tied to family size. And in turn this might discourage having children which would not be good for the economy perse. So a balance would have to be struck.
We are currently working with a failed system that we can’t afford. Why not simplify and reduce the government agencies sucking tax dollars into a black hole.
Back to the economic question. No need to reinvent the wheel, they're are some smart people who have already done work on this.
I like Citizens for Tax Justice, ctj.org.
iris lilies
9-9-18, 10:42am
Snap does go down as you earn more. Few people sit home on a welfare check like the old days. By the time your child is one they have work requirements, pay for daycare and get people working. People without kids get general assistance which is 200/month for 3 months maximum. Yes some people with disabilities are sitting home not working but that is because they are too disabled to work. Working poor can get Medicaid.
Please elaborate on the progeam of “general assistance” for people without children. I have not heard of that.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 10:50am
It is a program for single people with no income at all. It only lasts for 3 months and is only 200/month. We would tell some of our clients about it that were in dire straits. They could use it to eat at least. It has been around for decades.
iris lilies
9-9-18, 11:10am
It is a program for single people with no income at all. It only lasts for 3 months and is only 200/month. We would tell some of our clients about it that were in dire straits. They could use it to eat at least. It has been around for decades.
They can get food stamps for eating. This “general assistance” progeam is cash, right? I ask because I do not o ow.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 12:01pm
GA is cash. Food stamps don’t buy all your food. It is a supplement. If you are one of the few that qualify you are in a very bad position.
It's interesting to me how we micromanage and criticize and nitpick the poor and disabled among us, begrudging them every dime, while rich scofflaws launder millions, avoid taxes, inflate their own net worth with corporate shenanigans, and generally behave like pigs at a bottomless trough, siphoning off money that could be better spent on infrastructure and public works, and few of the citizenry bat an eye.
Jane, I feel the same way.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 2:05pm
Me too!
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 3:12pm
According to the Global Wealth Report of 2015 this country has the largest wealth inequality gap of 200 countries. The top 1% has so much more money than even the top 5 or 10%. Past generations had a good chance of out earning their parents. People born in the 1980’s only have a 40% chance of doing so.
According to the Global Wealth Report of 2015 this country has the largest wealth inequality gap of 200 countries. The top 1% has so much more money than even the top 5 or 10%.
Are you concerned that the pool of money is static and that every dollar one person earns is a dollar that is removed from the pool for others? If not, what impact does one person having more money than another have on everyone else?
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 3:26pm
A functional society needs a strong middle class. As I have mentioned before when CEO’s now make 400’s the workers when it used to be 25x’s the workers are being paid less so the people at the top can be richer. Even professional people are drowning financially. For example more colleges are hiring adjunct professors at low wages instead of full time positions with benefits.
A functional society needs a strong middle class. As I have mentioned before when CEO’s now make 400’s the workers when it used to be 25x’s the workers are being paid less so the people at the top can be richer. Is that in cash compensation or some sort of deferred compensation such as stock options? But either way, what does CEO compensation have to do with employee compensation?
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 3:40pm
Because employees used to be paid a living fair wage. Now the worker money is flowing to the CEO’s.
Because employees used to be paid a living fair wage. Now the worker money is flowing to the CEO’s.I don't think it works that way.
Alan, surely you've seen the charts that show how since the 70's the top 1%'s income has gone straight up, people in the middle have at best stayed flat and people on the lower economic rungs have gone down. So sure, the pool of money has gotten significantly bigger, but all that excess has gone to the super wealthy. I'm not looking at one now but suspect the only time that wasn't the case was 2008, when George Bush famously had to destroy the free market to save it because, of course, when rich people are suffering someone has to "do something!" But I'm sure if you add in the 8 years after 2008 the top 1% are right back to where they were before the crash.
Past generations had a good chance of out earning their parents. People born in the 1980’s only have a 40% chance of doing so.
It's unrealistic to expect each generation will have a higher standard of living, especially given that our economic system for some time now has been the beneficiary of cheap fossil fuels and other natural resources (such as water in aquifers, good topsoil) that will become scarcer and more expensive with time. History is cyclical, boom and bust, not a straight line up.
People need to lower their expectations and adjust their lifestyles to be more like those of their ancestors, recent immigrants, or people in other parts of the world who are our competition now.
Alan, surely you've seen the charts that show how since the 70's the top 1%'s income has gone straight up, people in the middle have at best stayed flat and people on the lower economic rungs have gone down.
Yes I've seen charts, although I'm sketchy on the relationship you guys imply. I suspect the inflated incomes you talk about are predominately deferred compensation in the form of stock and I'm not sure how anyone can say that executive compensation comes out of the pockets of non-executives.
I've only ever had two jobs outside of the military and both of those were in publicly traded companies with very high CEO compensation and I've never experienced the results you and TT are promoting. I believe if those two CEO's had been forced to work for free, it would have had no impact on the rest of us.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 4:42pm
Y: people don’t need to lower their expectations. That is ridiculous. The rich are rigging the system. Education and hard work should at least lead to a job where you can support yourself.
Y: people don’t need to lower their expectations. That is ridiculous. The rich are rigging the system. Education and hard work should at least lead to a job where you can support yourself.
It's not just the rich. It's you and me buying cheap goods from China, pumping up their economy, and expecting we should have a much better lifestyle than they do. It's American exceptionalism and it can't last. What goes up must come down. If you believe standards of living have to continually rise you're using the logic of a pyramid scheme, but the rest of the world is onto the scheme.
Teacher Terry
9-9-18, 5:14pm
Societies without a middle class do not fare well. Eventually people revolt. It is not reasonable for most of the country to be poor while a few at the top have all the wealth.
When the average worker has a higher income, he tends to spend more, which helps perpetuate a healthy economy. Trickle-down economics hasn't worked yet, but I guess there's always hope.
Speaking of immigrants, I came across the following article: https://reason.com/blog/2017/06/07/immigrants-are-responsible-for-substantiv
Which pretty clearly shows that immigrants as a group are a decided plus for the economy, initiating startups at a blazing rate, and contributing to much of the economic growth we experience. That would really chap the xenophobes' hide, if they read much.
It's not just the rich. It's you and me buying cheap goods from China, pumping up their economy, and expecting we should have a much better lifestyle than they do. It's American exceptionalism and it can't last. What goes up must come down. If you believe standards of living have to continually rise you're using the logic of a pyramid scheme, but the rest of the world is onto the scheme.
Germany has a solid manufacturing base with lots of decent paying jobs that come with that. A decent standard of living for most people can be done, just not as long as people like the Kochs pull the strings of their little puppets like Paul Ryan. And not as long as Republicans continue their decades long efforts to destroy collective bargaining.
Societies without a middle class do not fare well. Eventually people revolt. It is not reasonable for most of the country to be poor while a few at the top have all the wealth.
What if everyone was poor, would they still revolt?
I see Gravity Payments is still doing well; that's the Seattle-based corporation whose CEO took the bold step of raising employee compensations:
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article131986394.html
What if everyone was poor, would they still revolt?
Show us a society where everyone was/is poor and we can talk about it.
Show us a society where everyone was/is poor and we can talk about it.
Show me a functioning society where the poor overthrew the rich as some here are predicting and I'll see what I can do.
Germany has a solid manufacturing base with lots of decent paying jobs that come with that. A decent standard of living for most people can be done, just not as long as people like the Kochs pull the strings of their little puppets like Paul Ryan. And not as long as Republicans continue their decades long efforts to destroy collective bargaining.
Germany has had ups and downs. Remember when they suffered from hyperinflation and Deutsch marks were used as kindling? When a suitcase was stolen but the money in it dumped on the curb?
And the Germans weren't prepared for this downturn. They too had rising expectations. When those weren't met they turned to fascism.
Germany has had ups and downs. Remember when they suffered from hyperinflation and Deutsch marks were used as kindling? When a suitcase was stolen but the money in it dumped on the curb?
And the Germans weren't prepared for this downturn. They too had rising expectations. When those weren't met they turned to fascism.
I was talking about current Germany.
Show me a functioning society where the poor overthrew the rich as some here are predicting and I'll see what I can do.
The French Revolution comes pretty close. At the very least the poor can get mighty assertive if they get oppressed enough.
The French Revolution comes pretty close. At the very least the poor can get mighty assertive if they get oppressed enough.Be careful while you're stirring up the oppressed and convincing them to institute your Reign of Terror, sometimes it can't be stopped. Don't be Robespierre.
I was hoping you'd use Cuba as your example, because I was going to do the same.
I was talking about current Germany.
And I was talking about countries over a period of time, and the expectation that every generation should do better than the previous generation. That did not happen in Germany. We should not expect only upward movement forever in the US either. It's fantasyland.
Be careful while you're stirring up the oppressed and convincing them to institute your Reign of Terror, sometimes it can't be stopped. Don't be Robespierre.
I was hoping you'd use Cuba as your example, because I was going to do the same.
Generally i agree. Once a revolution gets started the end result is at best unpredictable. But dont blame me if it happens. I’m not the one doing the oppressing, just pointing it out.
But dont blame me if it happens. I’m not the one doing the oppressing, just pointing it out.That's why I mentioned Robespierre, not being the oppressor you convince the mob to take out won't keep them from taking your head as well.
Williamsmith
9-9-18, 9:23pm
That's why I mentioned Robespierre, not being the oppressor you convince the mob to take out won't keep them from taking your head as well.
Alan, I would respectfully state that people are merely reacting to one of the worst injustices that has occurred in regard to the proper administration of a capitalistic society. That is the bank bailout of 2008. For capitalism to work it must be accompanied by failure. Our own government provided the fuel by which this fire of resentment has been lit. Occupy Wall Street may not have all the theory straight but anger over the bailout is not one area they are wrong about.
Most People dont object to unequal distribution of wealth so long as it is merit based. Increasingly, our American brand of capitalism has been under scrutiny. Can you blame people for looking for unfair advantages after the very people who caused the Great Recession were bailed out?
All you are seeing is the continued grievances that were set in motion about ten years ago. And this tends to undermine the real market forces that can work but won’t when workers don’t trust the system.
How can we have any trust in a system that favors the wealthy and so publicly refuses to let them fail at the same rate any other participant in capitalism experiences.
Alan, I would respectfully state that people are merely reacting to one of the worst injustices that has occurred in regard to the proper administration of a capitalistic society.
And I would submit, in an equally respectful manner, that people are reacting to the misguided notion that it isn't fair for some to have much when others have little. As a result, they want the government to make things "fairer" for them, which isn't actually fair at all.
Williamsmith
9-9-18, 9:39pm
What I’ve read here always seems to express a concern that the inequality is not the result of a merit based system. .thats different than saying it’s just not fair period. But I can see how it’s easier to be dogmatic about it if you can describe the opposition as fringe lunatics.
It is necessary for government to referee the game and access penalties for infractions.
Williamsmith
9-10-18, 4:38am
Here is a discussion which will resonate with a certain group regarding American Capitalism on the brink of Collapse. The viewpoint is from the Professor of Economics Richard Wolff whose historical explanations and observations come from the Marxist Economic model.
Now, you may dismiss the discussion totally and choose not to listen but there are some ideas expressed which should be digested. Income inequality ....are capitalists starving out the poor in America. Have they reached their limits for borrowing? Has American capitalism cast aside its population in favor of selling goods to the world? Is there a connection in history to our current economy and the late 1920s?
Watch the ideas being expressed here and ponder the difference between politics and economics as they relate to democracy. Should we have democracy in economics that involves the workers also? Are corporations removing democracy from politics with their wealth, power and influence?
https://youtu.be/s6Z5Tf-aTJw
In the late 1920's rich individuals like FDR staved off revolution by instituting social programs. That could happen again. At times even Trump has supported single payer. Capitalism will not collapse in the near term and is not on the brink. In the long run our destruction of the environment may do it in though.
Williamsmith
9-10-18, 9:09am
I guess it could depend on how you define “brink” or “near term”. At least for some. Some feel capitalism is sacrosanct or immune. I view it as endangered or exposed. I see a possibility of a political revolution much like occurred when Reagan was elected by baby boomers. I see millennials coming into their own and becoming a political force to reckon with. And the Republican Party it seems to me is basically embracing the older generation that put them in control of government and are turning their backs on millennials or at least ignoring them.
Millenials will turn to the Democratic Party for a source of empowerment. That means capitalism could take quite a hit when a coalition of millenials and perhaps baby boomers who have become disenchanted with Trumps administration and are looking nostalgically at the 60s and thinking maybe it’s time our theory can be put in action. I think the Republican Party might fade soon. If not 2018 , perhaps 2020. Someone in he mold of Bernie Sanders could appeal to enough millenials and retired baby boomers to put a socialist mindset into office.
And I should add, millenials that I know are turning away from consumption, they aren’t buying houses or furniture or any of the stuff capitalists would like to see hem buying at the rate needed to keep the economy producing profit. Millenials are shunning houses, kids, fancy shiny things. They are adopting minimalist attitudes, living within their means and staying away from borrowing and they are looking at this as a social lifestyle which can be an answer to our debt. I think American capitalism sees this and has moved offshore to other emerging economies looking for consumers who can borrow and will spend like crazy.
Teacher Terry
9-10-18, 10:29am
WS, you are so right about the millennials. None of my 3 kids intend to ever buy a house. They want to be mobile for jobs when needed. None have children. They don’t collect anything and spend their money on travel. My 2 stepsons have modest homes and in other regards are like my kids. Almost everyone in our social circle would vote for a Bernie like candidate. They all have kids or grandkids and are worried about their futures. It doesn’t matter anymore if you are highly educated or not. People are struggling at all levels. Many law colleges only have a 50% employment rate after graduation. Professors are worse. By 50 many white collar people are laid off and never get a professional job again. Teachers in many states are so low paid that they are driving Uber at nights and weekends. People in the trades can do well providing they don’t get hurt on the job. The book “Squeezed” is a eye opener on what is happening. Of course spending my life in human services I have been aware all along what is happening to people. It’s easy to blame the poor when you don’t know them. Much harder when it is your 55 yo professional neighbor.
Williamsmith
9-10-18, 10:38am
WS, you are so right about the millennials. None of my 3 kids intend to ever buy a house. They want to be mobile for jobs when needed. None have children. They don’t collect anything and spend their money on travel. My 2 stepsons have modest homes and in other regards are like my kids. Almost everyone in our social circle would vote for a Bernie like candidate. They all have kids or grandkids and are worried about their futures. It doesn’t matter anymore if you are highly educated or not. People are struggling at all levels. Many law colleges only have a 50% employment rate after graduation. Professors are worse. By 50 many white collar people are laid off and never get a professional job again. Teachers in many states are so low paid that they are driving Uber at nights and weekends. People in the trades can do well providing they don’t get hurt on the job. The book “Squeezed” is a eye opener on what is happening. Of course spending my life in human services I have been aware all along what is happening to people. It’s easy to blame the poor when you don’t know them. Much harder when it is your 55 yo professional neighbor.
Anecdotally, I just had dinner on the weekend at a bar in Ohio and was waited on by a girl who is a school teacher! She moonlights on the weekend because her teachers salary isn’t enough for her family. Huh.
Teacher Terry
9-10-18, 10:40am
Very common. Although Minneapolis pays their teachers well which is rare. Some expensive cities have to provide housing because teachers can’t afford to rent in their location.
The French Revolution comes pretty close. At the very least the poor can get mighty assertive if they get oppressed enough.
They managed to replace a king with an emperor.
Williamsmith
9-10-18, 11:12am
They managed to replace a king with an emperor.
I suppose that makes more sense than replacing a King with a blowhard.
I suppose that makes more sense than replacing a King with a blowhard.
Oh I don’t know. Calling Napoleon names probably required more in the way of courage than insulting our president does today.
Williamsmith
9-11-18, 8:25am
I think millenials will have something to say about the next Presidential Election. I know their history has been that they are very vocal about issues but then fail to show up at the voting booth. I think the leaders of the Democratic and Republican Party are smart enough to have looked at the demographics and determined that if millenials ever start to vote on a consistent basis, they will turn this country into something that looks more like the European Union than their parents America.
Which is why the Democratic Party fixed the primary for Hillary Clinton. I know the common theme is that they fixed it because Hillary said it was “her turn” and that it was time a “woman” was President. Bull crap. The leaders of the Democratic Party could not afford to allow millenials to light fire over Bernie Sanders. It would have structurally changed the US in a dramatic way. He was the real outsider. With Bernie in office, Democrats would have been forced to rewrite the entire playbook and that wasn’t going to happen on their watch this time around. They chose to roll the dice with Hillary in order to keep the millenials in apathy.
If millenials begin to vote, their liberal ideas brought about by the failings of prior administrations will be front and center. Free college, universal health care, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, corporate taxing and just go down the list of Bernie’s favorite themes.
The only defense the two current parties have against the millenial wave is to keep them skeptical of the system itself. Which requires undermining it, casting doubt on the veracity of the voting process and keeping candidates that reflect their socialist leanings.....off the ballots. The war on progressives is in progress now.
Change is constant. The “millennial generation” (why do generations need brand names?) will outnumber the “baby boomers” after another three million funerals. Does it necessarily follow from that that millennials will change the world?
Why do we expect them to vote in a block, assuming they can be induced to vote in large numbers at all? Why don’t we expect them to get “mugged by reality” and leave aside childish things as they mature? If they are so famously skeptical and mistrustful, why are we so sure that they will succumb to the blandishments of a new wave of “democratic socialists”?
Teacher Terry
9-11-18, 1:35pm
Yes WS the millennials are our best hope for the future. 2 of my 3 kids vote. My youngest falls into that category but I think the older 2 don’t at 41 age and 45.
Williamsmith
9-11-18, 1:36pm
Change is constant. The “millennial generation” (why do generations need brand names?) will outnumber the “baby boomers” after another three million funerals. Does it necessarily follow from that that millennials will change the world?
Why do we expect them to vote in a block, assuming they can be induced to vote in large numbers at all? Why don’t we expect them to get “mugged by reality” and leave aside childish things as they mature? If they are so famously skeptical and mistrustful, why are we so sure that they will succumb to the blandishments of a new wave of “democratic socialists”?
Taking it one issue at a time.....millenials are expected to outnumber baby boomers by 2019....conveniently just before the 2020 elections. According to the US Census. That sounds quite a bit more imminent than your “after 3 million funerals” that doesn’t create a sense of urgency now does it.
As far as the validity of using generational labels.....are you saying that research is useless and that marketers, governments, the media and all other sorts of interested folks have wasted their time and money on generational investigations in order to find commonalities? Because you ought to tell them why so they can save a bunch of money.
Block voting is not a function of independence.....it’s a function of pathetic two party system we enjoy these days. Get them to vote and because of their “commonalities”...they will necessarily vote in a block.
Did I say millenials will change the world....I meant to say, they will change your world!
Millenials are far far from the “skulls full of mush” a radio talk show host has popularized. They are the most highly educated generation there has ever been. However, their education cost them an arm and a leg and they are still owing. They are pissed about that!
Nothing is certain, but perhaps this post will remain long enough for me to say.....”I can’t believe that socialist was elected President!” In 2016, plenty of people were shaking their heads when the “Symptom” was elected.
There are about 74 million boomers and 71 million millennials. I just did the math.
I think there is enough variation within any large population that making sweeping generalizations is problematic. For instance, I would be hesitant to assume that just because some members of a group carry college debt we are headed to a period of Bolshevik-lite politics.
There are about 74 million boomers and 71 million millennials. I just did the math.
I think there is enough variation within any large population that making sweeping generalizations is problematic. For instance, I would be hesitant to assume that just because some members of a group carry college debt we are headed to a period of Bolshevik-lite politics.
So we only have two courses--laissez-faire capitalism (government by oligarchs) and Bolshevism lite? I'm pretty sure we have more choices than that.
So we only have two courses--laissez-faire capitalism (government by oligarchs) and Bolshevism lite? I'm pretty sure we have more choices than that.
Not at all. There’s a broad spectrum of possible courses of action. I am in favor of neither your dystopian capitalist strawman regime nor the the Big Rock Candy Mountain future posited by the left.
I do object to facile predictions based on superficialities like race or gender or class or age acting the way we want them to. People are more complicated than that. Saying we are becoming Sweden even as Sweden turns to the right is a good way to look foolish. I should know. I bet good money on Rubio and then doubled down on Clinton.
Not at all. There’s a broad spectrum of possible courses of action. I am in favor of neither your dystopian capitalist strawman regime nor the the Big Rock Candy Mountain future posited by the left.
I do object to facile predictions based on superficialities like race or gender or class or age acting the way we want them to. People are more complicated than that. Saying we are becoming Sweden even as Sweden turns to the right is a good way to look foolish. I should know. I bet good money on Rubio and then doubled down on Clinton.
A rising fascism disturbs me; I can't think of a better way to sink a country than to insist all its citizens look alike. Maybe that's because I grew up here and believe in the old American principles vis-a-vis immigration. I have some hope that the generation coming up will prove to be competent and compassionate. but--like you--I've been wrong before.
A rising fascism disturbs me; I can't think of a better way to sink a country than to insist all its citizens look alike. Maybe that's because I grew up here and believe in the old American principles vis-a-vis immigration. I have some hope that the generation coming up will prove to be competent and compassionate. but--like you--I've been wrong before.
A political elite ignored or belittled a population that punished them for it at the ballot box. You don’t need to approve of Trump or harbor fascist sympathies to take a little satisfaction in that.
Nor does preferring that borders be secured the way every country on Earth does necessarily make you a racist.
Williamsmith
9-18-18, 8:05am
Trumps trade war with China may turn into a referendum on “socialist market economy” vs the “free market” economy. I’m not sure Americans are prepared for the increase in cost of goods or complete unavailability. The masses are too used to walking into WalMart and buying cheap consumer products from China or browsing Amazon offerings. Some say Trump might just might tank the economy and burst his own bubble.
Maybe that’s what you get when you put a person in charge of the worlds largest economy who has a history of using bankruptcy as a wealth preservation tool.
Some say Trump might just might tank the economy and burst his own bubble.
Yep. We were set to buy a refrigerator but it went up $350 in one swoop. Never mind.
ApatheticNoMore
9-18-18, 2:58pm
I have my doubt millenials are what is expected of them. Most of the real activists I see out there seem to be the old boomer cohort. I don't know why this is (although maybe because the legacy of political activism and when it actually was both widespread and mattered dates back that far).
DD is at the older end of the millennial age group. Among she and her highly educated peers, some things seem to be more important - equality in all its forms, environmentalism, entrepreneurship vs corporate and other liberal/moderate ideas. I suppose if there were enough of them who became politically active, things might swing differently. But there are also probably more aimless, uneducated young people who have nothing to contribute and probably won't vote either way. And a whole bunch of old white men who don't want change.
Trumps trade war with China may turn into a referendum on “socialist market economy” vs the “free market” economy. I’m not sure Americans are prepared for the increase in cost of goods or complete unavailability. The masses are too used to walking into WalMart and buying cheap consumer products from China or browsing Amazon offerings. Some say Trump might just might tank the economy and burst his own bubble.
Maybe that’s what you get when you put a person in charge of the worlds largest economy who has a history of using bankruptcy as a wealth preservation tool.
We don’t want to lose our access to cheap communists slave labor, do we.
Ultralight
9-19-18, 7:19am
We don’t want to lose our access to cheap communists slave labor, do we.
Someone queue up the communist apologetics!
Someone queue up the communist apologetics!
Real communism has never been tried. Those guys who killed a hundred million people last century were cheap knockoffs of the genuine brand. Anyone who says otherwise is just a greedy racist.
Someone needs to chain up unfettered capitalism in the attic so it doesn’t get loose and run with scissors. And who’s better at chaining people up than communists?
Ultralight
9-19-18, 11:23am
Real communism has never been tried. Those guys who killed a hundred million people last century were cheap knockoffs of the genuine brand. Anyone who says otherwise is just a greedy racist.
Someone needs to chain up unfettered capitalism in the attic so it doesn’t get loose and run with scissors.
Thank you, comrade!
Real communism has never been tried. Those guys who killed a hundred million people last century were cheap knockoffs of the genuine brand. Anyone who says otherwise is just a greedy racist.
Someone needs to chain up unfettered capitalism in the attic so it doesn’t get loose and run with scissors. And who’s better at chaining people up than communists?
So the Chinese are socialist communist? Or democratic communist? I’m not up on the latest.
So the Chinese are socialist communist? Or democratic communist? I’m not up on the latest.
Like most mature communist polities, the best analogy would be to feudalism. A relatively small number of families control the military and economic assets while a larger body of serfs are controlled using brutal methods. There is also a strong tendency to territorial aggression.
Ultralight
9-19-18, 1:16pm
A relatively small number of families control the military and economic assets while a larger body of serfs are controlled using brutal methods. There is also a strong tendency to territorial aggression.
Why does this sound so familiar...? ;)
Sounds like capitalism.
Yes. Life in New Jersey is nearly indistinguishable from that in Novosibirsk.
Here’s a hint on how to spot one subtle difference. Move to China and try to post about Mr Xi similar to the way you post about Mr Trump.
Why does this sound so familiar...? ;)
Because years of moral relativism take their toll?
Williamsmith
9-19-18, 4:11pm
Yes. Life in New Jersey is nearly indistinguishable from that in Novosibirsk.
Here’s a hint on how to spot one subtle difference. Move to China and try to post about Mr Xi similar to the way you post about Mr Trump.
Im not sure what pure free market capitalism has to do with free speech. Unless you are talking buying politicians votes with “lobbyist” money.
Capitalism is not based on free speech, our Constitution supposedly guarantees free speech, not the market.
Ultralight
9-19-18, 5:30pm
Die-hard Capitalists will say the free market provided the rain at the end of a long drought.
Die-hard Capitalists will say the free market provided the rain at the end of a long drought.What would you replace capitalism with?
Ultralight
9-19-18, 5:41pm
What would you replace capitalism with?
There will be no replacing capitalism in America.
Williamsmith
9-20-18, 9:14am
There is an assumption by some that if a person talks about the demise of capitalism, there must be an insinuation that a revolution is imminent. The current conditions do appear to many that our economy is pregnant and expecting. But it seems unlikely that revolution in the sense of a violent proletariat uprising is even feasible. So what is the future for our capitalism? Status quo....where the income of the wealthiest doubles and triples while the income of the lowest 50% remains stagnant? Is that an acceptable outcome for our great capitalist system? Or is it more likely that capitalism will be poured into ice or mixed with ginger ale instead of being consumed straight up?
What Does Late Capitalism really mean?
https://youtu.be/O7zZPqar34w
Williamsmith
10-2-18, 8:42am
Apparently the richest capitalist in the world has a conscience after all. But perhaps his shareholders are going to hate him. Amazon is raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour and lobbying the federal government to raise its paltry $7.25 per hour minimum wage. Amazon will do this for all its employees whether they are seasonal, part time or full time.
Besos also challenged his competitors to do the same. Huh. Is this simply a public relations ploy by Besos? Is he working to reduce his workforce by research and development of robotics? Are those that say the minimum wage is a job killer right because it incentivizes a company to look for ways to eliminate workers in the manufacturing and processing systems?
A moderate increase in the minimum wage should have an immediate benefit for many workers and not a negative impact on the economy. Especially when corporate America has been benefiting from federal tax policy since Trumps election. Is this another step toward making America great again or just one step forward or , two steps back later. We will see.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/10/02/amazon-minimum-wage-increase-15-all-its-employees/1495473002/
Apparently the richest capitalist in the world has a conscience after all. But perhaps his shareholders are going to hate him. Amazon is raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour and lobbying the federal government to raise its paltry $7.25 per hour minimum wage. Amazon will do this for all its employees whether they are seasonal, part time or full time.
Bernie has been on leaning heavily on his case for a while, and just yesterday reported that employees of Whole Foods are trying to organize a union because they're afraid that Bezos is going to "Amazon" their company. So maybe Bezos is simply succumbing to political pressure--and the threat of his employees organizing.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/01/whole-foods-amazon-union-organization-grocery-chain
Teacher Terry
10-2-18, 11:22am
WS, that’s great news!
ApatheticNoMore
10-2-18, 11:44am
Huh. Is this simply a public relations ploy by Besos? Is he working to reduce his workforce by research and development of robotics?
certainly he is looking into robotics, but also was even the main thing that was bad about that work the pay or rather the working conditions? Probably both and a pay increase is certainly a help to low paid employees, but when you hear about working under great heat, unable to take breaks etc., it's the working conditions as well that are a huge problem. So I say they still need to unionize.
Williamsmith
10-25-18, 5:15am
Stock Market Erased all Gain for the Year!
What!
https://www.thestreet.com/markets/global-stock-sell-off-wipes-trillions-from-markets-us-futures-look-to-rebound-14756850
LDAHL.......this is a teaching moment for you.
Stock Market Erased all Gain for the Year!
What!
https://www.thestreet.com/markets/global-stock-sell-off-wipes-trillions-from-markets-us-futures-look-to-rebound-14756850
LDAHL.......this is a teaching moment for you.
I was already aware of the fact that markets fluctuate.
Williamsmith
10-25-18, 7:13am
I was already aware of the fact that markets fluctuate.
Oh, you thought I said “teachable” moment! That’s adorable!
No, what I meant was that this is an opportunity to assuage people’s concerns over the volatility of the fluctuating markets. .......by teaching them in this moment.
Teacher Terry
10-25-18, 11:12am
Interesting my sister is good at seeing this’ stuff coming and told me she pulled some of her money out but not all and recommended we do the same which we did.
Oh, you thought I said “teachable” moment! That’s adorable!
No, what I meant was that this is an opportunity to assuage people’s concerns over the volatility of the fluctuating markets. .......by teaching them in this moment.
Here are the lessons I would offer, few if any of which are original to adorable me:
Only a fool thinks he can time the market.
Bear markets serve the important purpose of returning shares to their rightful owners.
The markets generally move in rational directions with occasional bouts of irrationality. However, the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
If someone comes to you with a theory of how the markets are being secretly controlled by central bankers, the Rothschilds, Wall Street, the Gnomes of Zurich, or any other colorful villain, kick him in the shin and run away.
Many otherwise intelligent people don’t have a good grasp on the concept of risk. Until it’s too late.
It’s important to stick with a plan, even a mediocre one.
Don’t hazard more than you can afford to lose.
If the people selling investing advice were smarter than you, they wouldn’t be selling advice for a living.
This time is not different.
The experts have predicted twelve of the last three bear markets.
sweetana3
10-25-18, 2:32pm
Right on Ldahl. We have been invested in the market since at least 1986. Too many base their decisions on an emotional response. Very hard to overcome. Individual investors no longer have access to the timely information necessary to make really good decisions.
Williamsmith
11-1-18, 1:17pm
India’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system instead of the US Patriot PAC-3 is a disappointment to the military - industrial complex and sullies the reputation of the deal maker -in- chief, Donald Trump. Not only that but it was revealed today that the Indians signed the contract to pay in Rubles.....not the US dollar even though that means it’s inconvenient for India. Apparently India wasn’t happy about the threats of sanctions the Trump administration was making over the decision. Now that the deal is off, Washington apparently has indicated that they’d be willing to forget about it if only India would commit to buy some F-35s. Now if Putin can only close the deal with the Saudis for the S-400, Trump would be made to look like a real amateur. What happens to our welfare/warfare economy when we run out of countries to sell arms to?
HappyHiker
11-2-18, 10:14am
Does any country practice "humanism" instead of "capitalism"?
Imho, capitalism is not a good system for people as it puts moneyprofits over human needs. And the environment be damned if it get in the way of profits.
I guess socialism is the closest to humanism, but in the U.S. it's likened to communism and all sorts of scary bad thought arise among many from this labeling...
Meanwhile, we continue to slouch forward toward looming crisis. "Something evil this way cometh" -- the impending environmental crisis will trump profits soon enough for so many humans..
Williamsmith
11-3-18, 9:45am
News sources from around the world purvey disturbing predictions about the US economy.
For instance, it is reported that Russia, China and Turkey have increased their purchases of gold. Gold is the one precious metal which is immune from the sanctions and financial pressures the US places on countries as an economic bullying tactic. Iran seems to be in the barrel as of now but China and Russia have been dealing with this also of late. Turkey seems to want to be insulating itself from the exposure to US financial tactics.
Also China and Russia both have cut their investment in US debt securities. This reduces the ability of the US to print money, grow its economy and sustain a consumption based model. Of course, Saudi Arabia is a player in purchasing military assests but there are tense issues playing out now. The failed sales of the US Patriot missile system to some serious world powers with the contracts going to Russia is also creating concern in Washington.
These situations and the instability of the world in general,(North Korea is threatening to restart the nuclear program)as an example the new sanctions on Iran indicate a slowing of the US economy and a reduction in the worth of the US dollar. Bank of America conducted a recent poll of investment fund managers who responded that they have reduced investments by 17% due to market volatility. The tariffs on China, the trade wars, the agricultural restrictions, and the Federal Reserve policies have the fund managers skiddish about their investments. China is beginning to dump its 1.2 trillion dollars of US national debt stocks which would definitely impact the US economy.
ToomuchStuff
11-3-18, 2:02pm
Does any country practice "humanism" instead of "capitalism"?
Imho, capitalism is not a good system for people as it puts moneyprofits over human needs. And the environment be damned if it get in the way of profits.
I guess socialism is the closest to humanism, but in the U.S. it's likened to communism and all sorts of scary bad thought arise among many from this labeling...
Meanwhile, we continue to slouch forward toward looming crisis. "Something evil this way cometh" -- the impending environmental crisis will trump profits soon enough for so many humans..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan
HappyHiker
11-3-18, 5:40pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan
Thanks for the link!
Gross National Happiness??
Bhutan sounds very evolved.
Thanks for the link!
Gross National Happiness??
Bhutan sounds very evolved.
Yes, I agree--GDP is not the best climate metric of our well-being as a country.
Here's an interesting chart showing "World Happiness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report)on a variety of measures. US winds up being #18 overall; however, you can actually choose which variable you want to rank order the countries by. Doing that, I found that the "Land of the Free" actually are 51st in "Freedom to Make Life Choices." We're 33 in "Healthy Life Expectancy." We're 36 in "Social Support." But we are 10th in GDP.
Yes, I agree--GDP is not the best climate metric of our well-being as a country.
Here's an interesting chart showing "World Happiness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report)on a variety of measures. US winds up being #18 overall; however, you can actually choose which variable you want to rank order the countries by. Doing that, I found that the "Land of the Free" actually are 51st in "Freedom to Make Life Choices." We're 33 in "Healthy Life Expectancy." We're 36 in "Social Support." But we are 10th in GDP.
A friend and I like to trade quips that start with "We're number one!" when we run across such rankings. I think we're only first when it comes to gun violence and weapons dealing.
ToomuchStuff
11-4-18, 11:49am
Yes, I agree--GDP is not the best climate metric of our well-being as a country.
Here's an interesting chart showing "World Happiness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report)on a variety of measures. US winds up being #18 overall; however, you can actually choose which variable you want to rank order the countries by. Doing that, I found that the "Land of the Free" actually are 51st in "Freedom to Make Life Choices." We're 33 in "Healthy Life Expectancy." We're 36 in "Social Support." But we are 10th in GDP.
Because so many people buy stuff, believing it is/brings happiness, perhaps?
However, reading this, made me think of a show I still would like to see (shown the opening by a relative):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA
Asking the measure of a country’s greatness is problematic in my mind. If one claims superior happiness, the other might say they’re simply afraid to complain. Is it the generosity of its welfare state? Military, economic or scientific prowess? Equality of condition or of opportunity? Internal comity or tolerance? Freedom to compete to speak or act? Long term survival?
Is there any dispositive proof of one society’s superiority to another?
ApatheticNoMore
11-4-18, 4:10pm
The happiness stuff does seem too difficult to remove from bias as some might just be social attitudes to more or less expression of positive/negative feelings,and that can be independent of how much such feelings are actually experienced.
However some things are just bad period or at the very least are bad within the context of that social system (and that's kinda key because it all is experienced in a social system). A country where half the population is near starvation, ok that's just bad period, in any system. Extreme poverty amongst extreme wealth tends to be that kind of bad. Poverty by itself, uh at the point of starvation etc. yes, but not at that point in a country where pretty much everyone is poor ... maybe... it depends.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.