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

[QUOTE=Strider*;28301427]That's never what I said. I never said art never came out of Soviet Russia. Here I'll post what you raged to me in a private message: You're really missing the point, as I said earlier art will exist anywhere. Now the best way for art to spread however is through capitalism. My point was that there were far more artists and professional intellectuals in the United States because of an economic system that supports and harbors their work. In the absence of capitalism when there is no means for an artist to market their work they must rely on the charity of a patron or that of the bureaucracy. Many if not all of the famous artists you and I are familiar of from the renaissance Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Donatello, ect were all funded by powerful patrons who in the long run controlled what work they could produce. And in Russia it was no different.... excuse me for Wikipedia: You really need to chill out brother and work on your critical reading skills. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] I don't actually, we've striven too far away from true capitalism. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] And who determines the greater goal? Why should my work and my life be held in slavery to the direction that society forces me to take? Everyone SHOULD work for themselves, this is where your and my morals are at ends. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] Haha, whatever dude. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WA[/media] [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] Big money would have no power over an entity like Wikileaks other than through the fusion of government and corporation which we have today and if I understand correctly both me and s0beit are against.[/QUOTE] But your point about art is wrong. Why don`t you get that? You said capitalism is the best method to spread art? No. Russian constructivist art reached more people than any american art ever has. Your point? I know the history of allt he great renaissance painters and artists,and yes, they were all funded by the richest fuckers at the time. Why? Because that period was about mastery of art, and mastery of oil. That's what that period is defined as, getting to master a skill. Now, the funny thing is, before the renaissance, what happens? Art. After? Art. Not sponsored by big money, but still getting around. There has been art for 30,000 years, and you've managed to find a way of saying, none of that art matters because the only art that matters is commercially viable art. You're a corpratist more or less. all you're going to come back with is ways and justifications to make society worse while making a few richer.

New york city never had equality, in reality: Economic duality

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28303916]But your point about art is wrong. Why don`t you get that? You said capitalism is the best method to spread art? No. Russian constructivist art reached more people than any american art ever has. Your point? I know the history of allt he great renaissance painters and artists,and yes, they were all funded by the richest fuckers at the time. Why? Because that period was about mastery of art, and mastery of oil. That's what that period is defined as, getting to master a skill. Now, the funny thing is, before the renaissance, what happens? Art. After? Art. Not sponsored by big money, but still getting around. There has been art for 30,000 years, and you've managed to find a way of saying, none of that art matters because the only art that matters is commercially viable art. You're a corpratist more or less. all you're going to come back with is ways and justifications to make society worse while making a few richer.[/QUOTE] Hang on I thought the USSR wasn't "proper" Communism anyway.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28302089] Money is not a static thing, this is where you are ignorant. Life and capitalism is not a zero sum game.[/QUOTE] Perhaps, but then I'd like to know where all the money people make comes from. A world where everybody makes a profit doesn't make sense to me.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;28305311]Hang on I thought the USSR wasn't "proper" Communism anyway.[/QUOTE] It isn't. It's a dictatorship with aspects of mildly communisitic practices, but the fact art can spread in a dictatorship is an even bigger hole in his argument.

I don't know what any of these graphs mean, but they are telling me that I am losing money...so I'm angry.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28303916]But your point about art is wrong. Why don`t you get that? You said capitalism is the best method to spread art? No. Russian constructivist art reached more people than any american art ever has.[/QUOTE] Sure Russian constructivist art reached many people. But art during the Soviet Union was heavily controlled by the state, why? Because that was the only way for the artist to make a living, to be employed by the state and to produce only works with which the state approved of. Guess when the artists were finally free to promote their own work and choose their own direction? When the hero Gorbachev opened up the Soviet Union to economic reform. Never in the history of the fucking world have you seen so much art, literature, and intellectual thought than the period we now live and primarily in the Western world. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;28308549]Perhaps, but then I'd like to know where all the money people make comes from. A world where everybody makes a profit doesn't make sense to me.[/QUOTE] You think money is just some static thing we pull out of the fucking ground and then either loot or pillage? Money is just the culmination and method of trading production. The more we all produce the more we all have. Common sense... if I trade my apples for your oranges does that mean either of us have lost out in that transaction? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28309045]It isn't. It's a dictatorship with aspects of mildly communisitic practices, but the fact art can spread in a dictatorship is an even bigger hole in his argument.[/QUOTE] Sure art which the society approves of and consequently wants to fund. A group such as the Beatles would have never survived or thrived in the U.S.S.R.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;28302263]My unemployed room mate makes more money than I do having a job. And all he does is smoke pot and play bad company 2 on his PS3. Isn't just distribution of wealth between the incredibly rich and the impoverished, it's the working class folks getting unfair balances between themselves as well.[/QUOTE] If you have any evidence of this other than anecdotal please post it. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;28302452]Whoa brother, I'm sure we can all agree that John Stossel is one of the greatest reporters of all time.[/QUOTE] Please he's no Walter Cronkite. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Micr0;28302534]I'm not familiar with American reporters. From what I've seen so far, this guy seems like your typical conservative out to demonize anything that shows any sign of socialism.[/QUOTE] He was okay back when he was on 20/20 but since then he's gone off the deep end.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28309794]Sure Russian constructivist art reached many people. But art during the Soviet Union was heavily controlled by the state, why? Because that was the only way for the artist to make a living, to be employed by the state and to produce only works with which the state approved of. Guess when the artists were finally free to promote their own work and choose their own direction? When the hero Gorbachev opened up the Soviet Union to economic reform. Never in the history of the fucking world have you seen so much art, literature, and intellectual thought than the period we now live and primarily in the Western world. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] You think money is just some static thing we pull out of the fucking ground and then either loot or pillage? Money is just the culmination and method of trading production. The more we all produce the more we all have. Common sense... if I trade my apples for your oranges does that mean either of us have lost out in that transaction? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] Sure art which the society approves of and consequently wants to fund. A group such as the Beatles would have never survived or thrived in the U.S.S.R.[/QUOTE] Dude, are you fucking stupid or something? Do you not realize that being in a capitalist society doesn't guaruntee you anything? The beatles might not have made it anyways, they got lucky. That's capitalism in a nut shell for an artist. WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU GET THIS? And while you may be right, that there's more art here- Oh, fuck, I keep forgetting, you're not right. Because capitalism hasn't always existed, and art was wide spread then. Today, art is more varied than ever, of course. But, we're also farther along than ever before so making a hypothetical about how little art we'd have without capitalism, is stupid. Artists like picasso don't count in your reality, of course.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28309794]A group such as the Beatles would have never survived or thrived in the U.S.S.R.[/QUOTE] Depends whether you are talking pre or post Stalin's death.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28309962]Dude, are you fucking stupid or something? Do you not realize that being in a capitalist society doesn't guaruntee you anything? The beatles might not have made it anyways, they got lucky. That's capitalism in a nut shell for an artist. WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU GET THIS? And while you may be right, that there's more art here- Oh, fuck, I keep forgetting, you're not right. Because capitalism hasn't always existed, and art was wide spread then. Today, art is more varied than ever, of course. But, we're also farther along than ever before so making a hypothetical about how little art we'd have without capitalism, is stupid. Artists like picasso don't count in your reality, of course.[/QUOTE] Why do you miss the fucking point everytime I make it. It's fucking pathetic really, I feel like I'm dealing with a twelve year old. Capitalism allows an artist to market themselves and consequently survive. Without capitalism the professional intellectual and the artist can only survive through the funding of the bureaucracy or the privileged. Is that really that hard to understand? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] Also, chill out bro.

the issue is that strider believes a capitalist society is a meritocracy, my response to that being: lmao the very foundation of capitalism is that of unequal exchange so, when practiced on a large enough scale, unrestricted capitalism necessarily leads to economic oppression of some peoples

[QUOTE=Strider*;28310137]Why do you miss the fucking point everytime I make it. It's fucking pathetic really, I feel like I'm dealing with a twelve year old. Capitalism allows an artist to market themselves and consequently survive. Without capitalism the professional intellectual and the artist can only survive through the funding of the bureaucracy or the privileged. Is that really that hard to understand? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] Also, chill out bro.[/QUOTE] You keep acting like capitalism is any more fair than a dictatorship, it's like you don't realize how lucky the people who got succesful are. I know, I know, it's "all hard work". Luck plays a huge part in this. The point you're trying to make? That's not true though. Capitalism doesn't guarantee intellectual property more than any other system. Elvis, stole shit tons of song from Little Richard, but no one fucking cares cause he's white, so clearly, there's issues here you aren't realizing. And how in the name of fuck, does a social democracy, NOT SUPPORT THE ARTIST?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310210]You keep acting like capitalism is any more fair than a dictatorship, it's like you don't realize how lucky the people who got succesful are. I know, I know, it's "all hard work". Luck plays a huge part in this. The point you're trying to make? That's not true though. Capitalism doesn't guarantee intellectual property more than any other system. Elvis, stole shit tons of song from Little Richard, but no one fucking cares cause he's white, so clearly, there's issues here you aren't realizing. And how in the name of fuck, does a social democracy, NOT SUPPORT THE ARTIST?[/QUOTE] i already know what he's going to say "because in the soviet union..."

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310210]Capitalism doesn't guarantee intellectual property more than any other system. Elvis, stole shit tons of song from Little Richard, but no one fucking cares cause he's white, so clearly, there's issues here you aren't realizing.[/QUOTE] Haha I love how you bring up this point like it has any fucking thing to do with my argument. The theft of intellectual property should be dealt with in the courts, it has nothing to do with capitalism. A social democracy supports the artist so long as it allows them to market their works.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28310137]Why do you miss the fucking point everytime I make it. It's fucking pathetic really, I feel like I'm dealing with a twelve year old. Capitalism allows an artist to market themselves and consequently survive. Without capitalism the professional intellectual and the artist can only survive through the funding of the bureaucracy or the privileged. Is that really that hard to understand? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] Also, chill out bro.[/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen_(band)#Economical_practices]Minutemen[/url]?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28310258]i already know what he's going to say "because in the soviet union..."[/QUOTE] He's arguing everything from the perspective of "The absence of capitalism" as if we're even fucking talking about that. Not one of us would ever dare suggest the complete, and total removal of a market system. We're not retarded, but he acts like we are. I'm angry, Strider, because you can't bother to understand, not one of us is a communist, nor do any of us advocate for anything more than the careful regulation of business in order to support a society which allows the rich to get to where they are. I know you act like we have no right to take a penny away from a rich working man, but here's the thing... We do. We have every right. Why? well, the rich... can't... get... rich... without... the poor... to buy... their shit. And because there IS a society around them that has given that person everything from the day they were born to allow them to succeed, and live comfortably within that society, you OWE. You owe in taxes which help support the downtroden so they can live, so they can learn, so they can advance. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;28310269]Haha I love how you bring up this point like it has any fucking thing to do with my argument. The theft of intellectual property should be dealt with in the courts, it has nothing to do with capitalism. A social democracy supports the artist so long as it allows them to market their works.[/QUOTE] Yes, and we all advocate a social democracy for the most part. I don't see the artists in the netherlands making my black metal starving. Social democracy provides. Doesn't remove the market, etc. Stop arguing from "the absence of capitalism". We don't care.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310330]He's arguing everything from the perspective of "The absence of capitalism" as if we're even fucking talking about that. Not one of us would ever dare suggest the complete, and total removal of a market system. We're not retarded, but he acts like we are. I'm angry, Strider, because you can't bother to understand, not one of us is a communist, nor do any of us advocate for anything more than the careful regulation of business in order to support a society which allows the rich to get to where they are. I know you act like we have no right to take a penny away from a rich working man, but here's the thing... We do. We have every right. Why? well, the rich... can't... get... rich... without... the poor... to buy... their shit. And because there IS a society around them that has given that person everything from the day they were born to allow them to succeed, and live comfortably within that society, you OWE. You owe in taxes which help support the downtroden so they can live, so they can learn, so they can advance.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying you're a communist you fucktard. I'm trying to say that capitalism does great things for art and you're arguing with me about it. Don't twist the argument. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

There are times when it's okay to attempt to redistribute the wealth within a nation, but of course, the United States can't do that, because it's a too socialistic approach. The Gini coefficient for the US is 0.45, which isn't too bad.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28310363]I'm not saying you're a communist you fucktard. I'm trying to say that capitalism does great things for art and you're arguing with me about it. Don't twist the argument.[/QUOTE] But you don't need pure capitalism for any of the benefits of capitalism. in fact, i'd like to suggest, that full capitalism is fucking terrible. Oh wait, that's been the argument the whole time.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310417]But you don't need pure capitalism for any of the benefits of capitalism. in fact, i'd like to suggest, that full capitalism is fucking terrible. Oh wait, that's been the argument the whole time.[/QUOTE] You're right you don't need pure capitalism for some of the benefits. Your argument however was that art was just as prevalent in the U.S.S.R as it was in the United States and that is where we are at ends my friend. I think you're trying to get yourself out of the hole you've dug around the time you realized you're fucking wrong.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28310363]I'm not saying you're a communist you fucktard. I'm trying to say that capitalism does great things for art and you're arguing with me about it.[/QUOTE] but it doesn't do great things for art to the exclusivity of all other political systems. You point to the good things that result from capitalism like that excludes that anything good could happen under any other economic system. [QUOTE=Strider*;28310477]You're right you don't need pure capitalism for some of the benefits. [/QUOTE] no, don't phrase it like "part-capitalism is still good but not as good as total capitalism". Total, 100 percent free market capitalism (it's impossiblity aside) would be goddawful. Maybe you'd understand that if you saw that financial success is not the highest possible aspiration of humankind.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28310527] Maybe you'd understand that if you saw that financial success is not the highest possible aspiration of humankind.[/QUOTE] Personal, individual, and self serving success is.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28310698]Personal, individual, and self serving success is.[/QUOTE] Opinion. How far will we be as a species in 100 years like that. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;28310477]You're right you don't need pure capitalism for some of the benefits. Your argument however was that art was just as prevalent in the U.S.S.R as it was in the United States and that is where we are at ends my friend. I think you're trying to get yourself out of the hole you've dug around the time you realized you're fucking wrong.[/QUOTE] But... it was as prevalent. You're an american exceptionalist. It took you until this thread to realize that the majority of art isn't american art.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310767] But... it was as prevalent. You're an american exceptionalist. It took you until this thread to realize that the majority of art isn't american art.[/QUOTE] Shut up, a lot of my taste is foreign to the United States. You love to throw around the term American exceptionalist. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310767]Opinion. How far will we be as a species in 100 years like that.[/QUOTE] How far did the Soviet Union get? How far did we get during the dark ages?

[QUOTE=Strider*;28311222]Shut up, a lot of my taste is foreign to the United States. You love to throw around the term American exceptionalist. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] How far did the Soviet Union get? How far did we get during the dark ages?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I generally throw that at people with american central views when they act like the US does everything better. Yeah, and the soviet union is not an example of this. Scandanavian countries, canada, those are examples. This is where your fault lies, you act like the USSR is an accurate representation of anything but fucking dictatorships.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28311341]Yeah, I generally throw that at people with american central views when they act like the US does everything better. Yeah, and the soviet union is not an example of this. Scandanavian countries, canada, those are examples. This is where your fault lies, you act like the USSR is an accurate representation of anything but fucking dictatorships.[/QUOTE] Being a dictator is the ultimate form of self-serving success.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28311714]Being a dictator is the ultimate form of self-serving success.[/QUOTE] I see. So, when people rise up, and have monetary control of the rest of us, that's a good thing?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28311801]I see. So, when people rise up, and have monetary control of the rest of us, that's a good thing?[/QUOTE] no matter how much monetary control they have over us, it's still a meritocracy and with a little bit of elbow grease, we could be the oppressors one day :allears: [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;28310698]Personal, individual, and self serving success is.[/QUOTE] nope. How much money you've got means nothing if the people you care for are suffering, and (with empathy being hardwired into the human brain) any sane person cares at least a little for everyone else in the world

Communism: TF2 before trading Capitalism: TF2 [i]after[/i] trading. TF2 is now an unplayable mess of sociopaths trying to scam each other as much as possible without getting caught how has this not been mentioned yet in this thread on facepunch of all places