New Data Shows Just How Unequal Wealth Has Become in the U.S. Since the 80s - Polidicks

I like to read Strider's post in Sheldon's obnoxious voice. They're both just so darn self assured that they are right.

shouldnt we be knocking the daylights out of greedy CEOS that make 200+ million a year instead of arguing over education systems? cause this doesnt make any fucking sense to me

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28290410]I like to read Strider's post in Sheldon's obnoxious voice. They're both just so darn self assured that they are right.[/QUOTE] to think I've been reading him with Ron Paul's voice. [editline]25th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Moose;28290447]shouldnt we be knocking the daylights out of greedy CEOS that make 200+ million a year[/QUOTE] nope anyone who isn't a complete pacifist is a psychopathic evil crazy monster and a victim of M rated videogames now, didn't you get the memo?

[QUOTE=Pockets;28290479] nope anyone who isn't a complete pacifist is a psychopathic evil crazy monster and a victim of M rated videogames now, didn't you get the memo?[/QUOTE] what was that? i was too busy raping little boys because of the heavy influence that 'my little pony rainbow adventures' had on me

[QUOTE=Moose;28290447]shouldnt we be knocking the daylights out of greedy CEOS that make 200+ million a year instead of arguing over education systems? cause this doesnt make any fucking sense to me[/QUOTE] No of course not the suits that inherited their parent's company and never worked a day in their lives worked so much harder than the janitor who struggles to pay the bills and is therefore entitled to all of that money

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;28286957]Like that asshole JP Morgan? If it hadn't been for his greed we would all have wireless electricity by now. You know what I'm talking about. [img_thumb]http://www.magneticgeneratorinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/wardenclyffe_tower.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] R.I.P. Tesla.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28290756]No of course not the suits that inherited their parent's company and never worked a day in their lives worked so much harder than the janitor who struggles to pay the bills and is therefore entitled to all of that money[/QUOTE] or they can just cut their salary down to something that's reasonable and use that money to contribute to the country instead of using tax cuts as scape goats?

[QUOTE=froztshock;28290318]Wait, wouldn't competing against a "free" alternative force private schools to keep their prices as [b]low[/b] as possible to compete? If public education were removed and there was a sudden demand for private schools wouldn't that cause prices to actually increase, both because of the demand and because of the removal of a free competitor?[/QUOTE] They don't have as many students as public schools do and by extension less investors. Maintaining infrastructure is slightly different, they have a minimum cost to bare. With a pool of consumers so small they really don't have a choice but to charge a higher rate than the alternative or else their business just falls. That isn't to say there isn't ripoffs out there, I'm sure there is. Many of them use the higher standard of education to their advantage and charge more than others because the public school system is notorious for not being great. It is perceived by some, i would assume that you get what you pay for and that the more expensive the greater the education (though not being necessarily true). [QUOTE=Kontradaz;28290341]There is no such thing as "free" dollars. As a government organization it is supported by the budget of the government and the taxes paid by citizens. [/quote] That was exactly my point and why i used the double-quotes. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;28290341] In the U.S, private institutions absolutely kill public ones. In other countries, it is more even. Public schools are accountable to society, government, and the tax-payers that support them.[/quote] Public schools in the US are supposedly accountable to the same entities yet suffer horribly. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;28290341]The bureaucracy that is involved in the regulation of the educational system, although it needs improvement, does create accountability and does allow for competition and innovation. While public schools in countries such as France and Finland have programs that allow for competition between students and fosters innovation, public schools in the U.S are more limited. That does not mean that there is no competition or that private schools have more competition. [/QUOTE] You say it allows for innovation and competition yet you name no specific examples, competition simply can't exist when competing against a monopoly. They can survive, yeah, but that's a far cry from being a competitor. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;28290341] Other systems, such as private and home-schooled, fare fare well themselves. But the fact that a certain system does well does not automatically negate the benefits of a system that is public.[/QUOTE] It has benefits, they just aren't spectacular as everyone would have you believe. [QUOTE=Moose;28290447]shouldnt we be knocking the daylights out of greedy CEOS that make 200+ million a year instead of arguing over education systems? cause this doesnt make any fucking sense to me[/QUOTE] You're right but i will go back to an earlier post and say this: What the United States has isn't Capitalism. It hasn't been capitalism for a very, very long time. Look up Corporatism, specifically, "corporatism in the united states" It offers some surprising results that i think even most of you would agree with.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28290861]They don't have as many students as public schools do and by extension less investors. Maintaining infrastructure is slightly different, they have a minimum cost to bare. With a pool of consumers so small they really don't have a choice but to charge a higher rate than the alternative or else their business just falls. That isn't to say there isn't ripoffs out there, I'm sure there is. Many of them use the higher standard of education to their advantage and charge more than others because the public school system is notorious for not being great. It is perceived by some, i would assume that you get what you pay for and that the more expensive the greater the education (though not being necessarily true). That was exactly my point and why i used the double-quotes. Public schools in the US are supposedly accountable to the same entities yet suffer horribly. You say it allows for innovation and competition yet you name no specific examples, competition simply can't exist when competing against a monopoly. They can survive, yeah, but that's a far cry from being a competitor. It has benefits, they just aren't spectacular as everyone would have you believe. You're right but i will go back to an earlier post and say this: What the United States has isn't Capitalism. It hasn't been capitalism for a very, very long time. Look up Corporatism, specifically, "corporatism in the united states" It offers some surprising results that i think even most of you would agree with.[/QUOTE] Hmm, that makes sense. More students would allow them to charge less per student. I don't know if I agree with your opinion, but thank you for at least being coherent.

[QUOTE=Moose;28290820]or they can just cut their salary down to something that's reasonable and use that money to contribute to the country instead of using tax cuts as scape goats?[/QUOTE] We don't have to cut their salary, we have to raise their taxes.

It's kinda hard to raise their taxes when they're the ones who control whether or not their taxes get raised.

fuck em

[QUOTE=Strider*;28287173]You're preassuming that the device actually worked. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] Do you think art like we know it today would exist if artists couldn't make an absurd amount of money? The only art that existed before the dawn of the American era was typically art that was supported by the bureaucracy and government funding. Capitalism is very important to art and professional intellectuals. You really should be thankful.[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out, a thread late, how abysmally fucking wrong you are. You know NOTHING of anything artistic and that shows. I know you need that analogy to get your argument to work, but you're completely fucking stupid when it comes to that. you're such an american exceptionalist you're ignorant of reality. I know you think i'm wrong, but i'm laughing at you.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28292081]I'd like to point out, a thread late, how abysmally fucking wrong you are. You know NOTHING of anything artistic and that shows. I know you need that analogy to get your argument to work, but you're completely fucking stupid when it comes to that. you're such an american exceptionalist you're ignorant of reality. I know you think i'm wrong, but i'm laughing at you.[/QUOTE] I'll admit that maybe money isn't a major motivator for many [i]in art[/i], however, it is nice when good artists do make money off of their creations just as it's nice when people make money on their creations in any other aspect of life.

[QUOTE=Matix;28281379]What sucks is that there is no capitalistic way to fix this, and nobody is willing to adapt.[/QUOTE] They don't have to want to adapt to adapt you know, force works too. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] Also, for you "Durr soviet is teh cools" bigots Communism does not equal Facism, Communism is where every man/woman works toward a greater goal to benefit everyone (Unlike capitalism where everyone works for themselves though most of the time it is just to patent cheap labor), most people think Communism is bad because it is associated with China and soviet Russia.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28292168]I'll admit that maybe money isn't a major motivator for many [i]in art[/i], however, it is nice when good artists do make money off of their creations just as it's nice when people make money on their creations in any other aspect of life.[/QUOTE] For sure, I just had to point out though, he's the single most ignorant person i've ever met when it comes to art. I don't call myself a history buff for nothing, nor an art history buff, but just hearing that russian constructivism as an art style never happened because communism? It's like a torrent of stupidity.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;28292328]Also, for you "Durr soviet is teh cools" bigots Communism does not equal Facism, Communism is where every man/woman works toward a greater goal to benefit everyone (Unlike capitalism where everyone works for themselves though most of the time it is just to patent cheap labor), most people think Communism is bad because it is associated with China and soviet Russia.[/QUOTE] It still won't work.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;28292328]They don't have to want to adapt to adapt you know, force works too. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] Also, for you "Durr soviet is teh cools" bigots Communism does not equal Facism, Communism is where every man/woman works toward a greater goal to benefit everyone (Unlike capitalism where everyone works for themselves though most of the time it is just to patent cheap labor), most people think Communism is bad because it is associated with China and soviet Russia.[/QUOTE] Truly if humans were ants and governments were not greedy and corrupt, communism is the perfect system. Sadly it's always the governments who get greedy and fuck brilliant plans like this up. Sadly without fail, every single time this is tried the government gets greedy, steals from the people far too much, and completely fucks the whole plan up, from the USSR to cuba to really any socialistic system you look at. It truly is the perfect plan on paper, but doesn't take into account human greed and emotion. If all humans were equal and ants, it would work perfectly. To make it work you have to take the human emotion and brain out of the human.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;28292596]It still won't work.[/QUOTE] You would need a perfect government for it to work.

my favourite realization of this thread is that people like Strider think the state of the country is a good thing, with such disparity of wealth.

[QUOTE=Bepo5;28292646] human greed and emotion.[/QUOTE] I think people could fix that problem, but civilians would still revolt.

But being rich is so easy when you're rich.

How long... how much pushing will it take for the everyman to burst... and have that 90% topple the 10%? Don't piss us off. We work for a living.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28287392]Capitalism is just a economic system. it's not the grand hope for salvation, in every economic system theres always it's benefits and it's faults. Capitalism does not produce innovations, it's only objective is to produce something somebody will buy; if it's innvation that people will buy then it will produce innovation, but it's not always [B]beneficial[/B] innovation. People of benevolence and good will get crushed in our economic system by people who play for profit; truly amazing innovations that will benefit mankind are often elbowed out in favor of innovations or tangents that will produce more profit.[/QUOTE] On this tangent, I would like to mention something: Did you know that if you found the cure to AIDS tomorrow, you would not legally be required to release said cure? You wouldn't even have to tell anyone it existed. Now, picture this: America's pharmaceutical industry makes 10's of billions a year in profit. This is absolutely massive profit. Imagine one of these companies produces the current AIDS treatments (not a cure, just a treatment). Let's say it's worth $100 a month. Considering AIDS is a life-long disease, this is one hell of a treatment plan. Lots of money to be made here. I mean, if someone gets infected at 25 and lives to 80, that's $66,000 (not accounting for the obvious inflation that will occur). Now imagine some upstart scientist figures out a way to make a cure for AIDS for $100, and you only need to take it once. So if he successfully markets this cure, your $66,000 lifetime profit is turned into a $100 lifetime profit on that one individual. That is 660 times less money. In a capitalist society, where the goal is to grow your wealth, the most sensible course of action would be to buy the cure from this scientist and then [i]never release it[/i]. Your expenditure will probably amount to the 10's of millions but you will save yourself far more money in the long run. And no one ever has to know the cure existed. Some of you will say that they would never do this, that it is wrong. But has morality ever stopped the rich from doing terrible things before? The law certainly won't: as I said, there are no laws stating that a cure must be released. There could be potential cures out there for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers... but until a method of capitalizing on them is discovered, we'll never know.

This is how economic problems occur, the rich get richer and laugh at us poor people as we get poorer. Make it a law to not have more than $10bn. and take that extra cash and give it to us.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;28293082]On this tangent, I would like to mention something: Did you know that if you found the cure to AIDS tomorrow, you would not legally be required to release said cure? You wouldn't even have to tell anyone it existed. Now, picture this: America's pharmaceutical industry makes 10's of billions a year in profit. This is absolutely massive profit. Imagine one of these companies produces the current AIDS treatments (not a cure, just a treatment). Let's say it's worth $100 a month. Considering AIDS is a life-long disease, this is one hell of a treatment plan. Lots of money to be made here. I mean, if someone gets infected at 25 and lives to 80, that's $66,000 (not accounting for the obvious inflation that will occur). Now imagine some upstart scientist figures out a way to make a cure for AIDS for $100, and you only need to take it once. So if he successfully markets this cure, your $66,000 lifetime profit is turned into a $100 lifetime profit on that one individual. That is 660 times less money. In a capitalist society, where the goal is to grow your wealth, the most sensible course of action would be to buy the cure from this scientist and then [i]never release it[/i]. Your expenditure will probably amount to the 10's of millions but you will save yourself far more money in the long run. And no one ever has to know the cure existed. Some of you will say that they would never do this, that it is wrong. But has morality ever stopped the rich from doing terrible things before? The law certainly won't: as I said, there are no laws stating that a cure must be released. There could be potential cures out there for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers... but until a method of capitalizing on them is discovered, we'll never know.[/QUOTE] Another excellent post. The people who say they'll never do this are idiots, they do it. They've done it. this is how pharmaceutical works.

[QUOTE=Novistador;28284612]Once more proof of the fact that liberals aren't concerned with people being poor, but about some people being rich.[/QUOTE] you can't have the notion of some people being rich if poor people don't exist — therefore they can't disregard them

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;28293082]On this tangent, I would like to mention something: Did you know that if you found the cure to AIDS tomorrow, you would not legally be required to release said cure? You wouldn't even have to tell anyone it existed. Now, picture this: America's pharmaceutical industry makes 10's of billions a year in profit. This is absolutely massive profit. Imagine one of these companies produces the current AIDS treatments (not a cure, just a treatment). Let's say it's worth $100 a month. Considering AIDS is a life-long disease, this is one hell of a treatment plan. Lots of money to be made here. I mean, if someone gets infected at 25 and lives to 80, that's $66,000 (not accounting for the obvious inflation that will occur). Now imagine some upstart scientist figures out a way to make a cure for AIDS for $100, and you only need to take it once. So if he successfully markets this cure, your $66,000 lifetime profit is turned into a $100 lifetime profit on that one individual. That is 660 times less money. In a capitalist society, where the goal is to grow your wealth, the most sensible course of action would be to buy the cure from this scientist and then [i]never release it[/i]. Your expenditure will probably amount to the 10's of millions but you will save yourself far more money in the long run. And no one ever has to know the cure existed. Some of you will say that they would never do this, that it is wrong. But has morality ever stopped the rich from doing terrible things before? The law certainly won't: as I said, there are no laws stating that a cure must be released. There could be potential cures out there for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers... but until a method of capitalizing on them is discovered, we'll never know.[/QUOTE] Except there's several holes in your example, for one the scientist. Assuming he's working on the basis of his virtue and not money since not all scientists are money accumulating billionaires, wouldn't he just tell people anyway? How could a secret like that never get out. There is also a way in capitalizing on it, in a gigantic way. You'd be blind to not see it, [b]you would absolutely abolish all of your competitors, raise your profile by 1000% and be the only person selling said cure for a short while[/b]. Your situation also requires the cooperation of an unimaginable amount of people to occur. [editline]edit[/editline] Furthermore there are scientists the world over bound by corporations, or not, who have been looking for the cure for AIDS for decades. You're also assuming a cure for AIDS is simple enough to have been cured by now, when what you had before was no treatment and no cure. Would it have been better to look for a cure and cure only from the start and have no treatment at all with no guarantee of a cure in sight? On the extremely bizarre and off chance that your conspiracy theory holds water -- people with AIDS live longer today than they ever have before. Advancements are being made in treatment all the time, it's regrettable we don't have a cure but i think people are looking for it regardless of profit at this point.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28293157]Except there's several holes in your example, for one the scientist. Assuming he's working on the basis of his virtue and not money since not all scientists are money accumulating billionaires, wouldn't he just tell people anyway? How could a secret like that never get out. There is also a way in capitalizing on it, in a gigantic way. You'd be blind to not see it, [b]you would absolutely abolish all of your competitors, raise your profile by 1000% and be the only person selling said cure for a short while[/b]. Your situation also requires the cooperation of an unimaginable amount of people to occur.[/QUOTE] So pharmaceuticals who have scientists on contract to not disclose their discoveries outside of the company and have full rights to their discovery don't exist in your world how?

[QUOTE=Haxxer;28284119]and when it all crashes, all that money will mean [b]nothing[/b][/QUOTE] Except this money represents real estate/shares all other kinds of worth.