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

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28317299]Not true, often what is heavily promoted by galleries and agencies and other such succeed more than other artists, regardless of talent or if people like the other more, mainly because they're not aware of it due to the artist not having the funds to promote his work and get it in the public eye.[/QUOTE] Then you search for the agency or gallery that will promote you or you find the method to promote your work on your own. You only have one state.

also it's funny because the only media that's still profitable now is the kind aimed at the people who are literally too incompetent to figure out piracy (see: justin bieber, micheal bay, MTVesqe reality TV shows) edit: and any videogames that revolve around online multiplayer by virtue of the fact that you need to be able to connect to a server in order to actually get anything out of the game

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317326]Then you search for the agency or gallery that will promote you or you find the method to promote your work on your own. You only have one state.[/QUOTE] It's easy to say "oh find a way" and a lot harder when people are screwed due to circumstances they can't control. And not really, you can go to another country.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317326]Then you search for the agency or gallery that will promote you or you find the method to promote your work on your own. You only have one state.[/QUOTE] This means that the richest would seem to have better art just because they are able to advertise theres more.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317083]That's exactly my fucking point, way to critically read. I was attacking the method of spreading art in the Renaissance not attempting to use the Renaissance to defend capitalism.[/QUOTE] Sooo I'm right?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28317352]It's easy to say "oh find a way" and a lot harder when people are screwed due to circumstances they can't control. And not really, you can go to another country.[/QUOTE] Sure, because migrating to another country to produce artwork is totally fucking reasonable. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Habsburg;28317359]Sooo I'm right?[/QUOTE] No you're wrong unlike popular belief the Renaissance has nothing on the current state of art in the modern world.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317371]Sure, because migrating to another country to produce artwork is totally fucking reasonable.[/QUOTE] Uh... yeah? A lot of artists have done that. How is it less reasonable than struggling with a market that rejects you?

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317260]Who's ryand? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] No I think that ALL art should be given the chance to succeed commercially. What people like naturally will succeed.[/QUOTE] Again, you act like the existence of ads isn't real. Do you have any fucking clue how effective ads have become? How easily they draw crowds? [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;28317371]Sure, because migrating to another country to produce artwork is totally fucking reasonable. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] No you're wrong unlike popular belief the Renaissance has nothing on the current state of art in the modern world.[/QUOTE] There you go talking objectively again, as if you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I find it funny how people think capitalism is the only thing at fault for this huge difference between the top .01% and everyone else. It's not. The reason they have all the money is because they've rigged the system which shouldn't be possible in a government that works. They've been rigging it ever since the turn of the century, and though there have been those that fight against it (some who go to far and believe in an anti-capitalistic ideology that doesn't work and helps dictators get into power) they have been succeeding ever since. I know that most people in this thread are going to accuse me of being a crazy tinfoil conspiracy nut which is sad because that attitude blinds you and forces you to believe the mainstream (which has already shown itself to be misinformed for some strange reason). The reason this exists is because the super rich control the government, and they control it through organizations such as the CFR and Trilateral Commission. If you research the CFR you'll find that almost every major media corporation is part of this group, and they all work together for a single goal. That sounds dangerously close to a single corporation running as a monopoly. But these people aren't just the super rich, they're the financial controllers as well. They run Wall Street which in turn helps run the entire world economy. They run the federal reserve (a private bank who's leaders are in no way chosen democratically or even that influenced by Washington), they also run the banks through the federal reserve. These Bankers as I should call them have been trying for a long time to destroy the US in a plan to create a one world government, and they haven't been completely hiding it either. They meet once a year in meetings with no official name which some in the public call Bilderberg meetings. You know all those protests at the G8 meetings? If as many people knew about the Bilderberg meetings as those they wouldn't be just smashing windows, they'd be causing complete chaos in the streets. These people are actually conspiring to take down the dollar, to prevent the yuan from getting too powerful and to create a world bank that is separate from all the governments and controls the world's finances. Most of you probably won't believe me because you've heard it a thousand times before from some nut job saying all the world leaders are lizard people from the planet ziburu or some crazy tinfoil conspiracy about 9/11 but this is an actual conspiracy, an illegal group of people from nations around the world who meet in secret to form agendas for a sinister purpose. They are the reason things are so bad right now, not capitalism itself. That and Reagan's supply side economics, that was terrible.

People can call you a tinfoil hat conspiracist, maybe their right a little bit, but it's not far off the truth what you say here. There's also the gold buy of 1929 that totally proves how fucking corrupt they are. The Rockefellers and some other super rich bought up all free and available gold a few months before the stock market crash. This caused them to be able to hold on to the only source of redeemable value at the time. seeing as, money was backed by gold for a while, then became "Legal US Tender" which means very little.

Let's not forget, just a few pages ago he seemingly forgot to explain the existence of health care/education for the poor, as well as how to stop wealth from becoming hereditary in his perfect system, so why are you even discussing the spread of art and whatnot? @SmokeBanana, looks pretty 1984-y to me. Except the Inner Party didn't even care about wealth, only power.

[QUOTE=torero;28324943]Let's not forget, just a few pages ago he seemingly forgot to explain the existence of health care/education for the poor, as well as how to stop wealth from becoming hereditary in his perfect system, so why are you even discussing the spread of art and whatnot? @SmokeBanana, looks pretty 1984-y to me. Except the Inner Party didn't even care about wealth, only power.[/QUOTE] Well, wealth is power in capitalism.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317371]Sure, because migrating to another country to produce artwork is totally fucking reasonable. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] No you're wrong unlike popular belief the Renaissance has nothing on the current state of art in the modern world.[/QUOTE] uhhhh that happens all the time for example andreas deja is going to be moving back to germany since there's no animation work for him here

herp derp tax increases on the rich isn't fair :downs:

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317371]Sure, because migrating to another country to produce artwork is totally fucking reasonable.[/QUOTE] A lot of artists have done it through the entire history of mankind. Good luck on making yourself look like an idiot by not studying history. [QUOTE=Strider*;28317371]No you're wrong unlike popular belief the Renaissance has nothing on the current state of art in the modern world.[/QUOTE] Another example of why you should learn some history.

Has Strider seriously been, for the last 15 pages, claiming that everything other than sweeping capitalism is communism? I wanted to wait until he stopped before I hopped into this one but holy shit

[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28324532]I find it funny how people think capitalism is the only thing at fault for this huge difference between the top .01% and everyone else. [/QUOTE] But wasnt the pursuit of money the reason why they did it? I mean someone will always find a way to to make things unfair if there is money in it. It seems greed is the problem and everything else is the systems.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28330949]But wasnt the pursuit of money the reason why they did it? I mean someone will always find a way to to make things unfair if there is money in it. It seems greed is the problem and everything else is the systems.[/QUOTE] It's the citizen's job to remain vigilant and make sure they don't assist corporations in their schemes, your statement is heavy handed against capitalism but you fail to mention two very important things. People will find a way to make things unfair under any system and greed will always be a factor.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28331150]It's the citizen's job to remain vigilant and make sure they don't assist corporations in their schemes, your statement is heavy handed against capitalism but you fail to mention two very important things. People will find a way to make things unfair under any system and greed will always be a factor.[/QUOTE] Im just saying that its the game itself not the players. Sadly there are many corporations that I hate but have to support simply because I can only get things from them. This could also be true of socialism as well because I know that isn't greed proof (even though people could argue less greedy) im just saying that its the system that not a few individuals thats causing the problems.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28331381]Im just saying that its the game itself not the players. Sadly there are many corporations that I hate but have to support simply because I can only get things from them. This could also be true of socialism as well because I know that isn't greed proof (even though people could argue less greedy) im just saying that its the system that not a few individuals thats causing the problems.[/QUOTE] It might be this system but once again, it isn't capitalism. This isn't capitalism and i feel like when i say that it falls on deaf ears. Go back a few pages. Anyway, I'd still like somebody to describe their ideal socialism to me. I'd also like to have them explain how under socialist systems government power wouldn't become a de-facto replacement for monetary power or how a socialist (or communist) system could work without coercion. Again, serious questions and not trolling. I do enjoy hearing alternative viewpoints.

I never said it was only capitalism. I say ask zeke I think he knows a thing or 2 more then I do about socialism. I personally think government corruption is harder to do then corporate. Also Denmark seems like a pretty cool place with very low corruption.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28331150]greed will always be a factor.[/QUOTE] i disagree 100 percent. greed is a learned behavior [quote]People will find a way to make things unfair[/quote] this doesn't mean anything then. If this will happen under any system, then you should still treat all systems equally. "People will always make things unfair" isn't a defense or an attack

[QUOTE=s0beit;28331599]It might be this system but once again, it isn't capitalism. This isn't capitalism and i feel like when i say that it falls on deaf ears. Go back a few pages. Anyway, I'd still like somebody to describe their ideal socialism to me. I'd also like to have them explain how under socialist systems government power wouldn't become a de-facto replacement for monetary power or how a socialist (or communist) system could work without coercion. Again, serious questions and not trolling. I do enjoy hearing alternative viewpoints.[/QUOTE] Well for one thing in a good democratic system political power could be stripped from someone by public opinion. Someone can gain a lot of power, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if they become tyrannical then the means to kick them out of power are readily available to the people. In a Capitalist system, you cannot remove someone's monetary power so if someone is an ass with a lot of cash, it's difficult to go against them.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28331599] Anyway, I'd still like somebody to describe their ideal socialism to me. [/QUOTE] what they have in Iceland (or denmark or the netherlands or any other country which has a blend of a market and heavily socialized public services that has ran more or less without major problems for decades) [QUOTE=s0beit;28331599]I'd also like to have them explain how under socialist systems government power wouldn't become a de-facto replacement for monetary power[/QUOTE] just like any other functioning government, the government is kept in check by the people. Of course we are talking about Democratic Socialism (anyone on this forum except for North Korean trolls is talking about democratic socialism whenever they are defending socialism), and not a wholly socialist society but a heavily socialized society. [QUOTE=s0beit;28331599]or how a socialist (or communist) system could work without coercion. [/QUOTE] coercion exists in all governments. Understand that democratic socialism (which is the only socialism you'll hear anyone except trolls defending on this forum) is not a radical ideology. There is still a market, but within the society there are many "socialized"* elements. Not just socialized education and transportation (which we already have in america), but also, possibly, including things like socialized medicine, higher education, and insurance. It is simply that things that are deemed to be very important to society are not left in the hands of the stock market, which has a habit of fucking everything up on a pretty regular basis. *here's where there seems to be a big disconnect: socialized does not necissarily mean "government owned". In an [I]effective democracy[/I] the government acts as the will of the people, so anything that is "government owned" is actually [I]publicly owned[/I]. The image of "bumbling state beauraucrats slowing down healthcare" is not one that people need to be afraid of because, if those do pop up, the people can simply elect representatives who will improve the system and make it more efficient

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28331680]I never said it was only capitalism. I say ask zeke I think he knows a thing or 2 more then I do about socialism. I personally think government corruption is harder to do then corporate. Also Denmark seems like a pretty cool place with very low corruption.[/QUOTE] I don't know much about pure socialism because that has never really existed properly. If you just mean democratic socialism then everyone who lives in a western country that isn't the USA is qualified to speak on it. (Actually, even most Americans are, since the US implements many democratic socialist policies)

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28331964]I don't know much about pure socialism because that has never really existed properly. If you just mean democratic socialism then everyone who lives in a western country that isn't the USA is qualified to speak on it. (Actually, even most Americans are, since the US implements many democratic socialist policies)[/QUOTE] Pure Socialism is unrelated to political structure. It's an economic principle and it doesn't really matter how the government is structured around it, democratic or autocratic. Pure Socialism in itself though is not good as then it's just a planned economy pretty much. Government stuff has it's advantages but other stuff you don't want it controlling it.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28331731]i disagree 100 percent. greed is a learned behavior[/QUOTE] You will need to cite sources on that or something [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28331731]this doesn't mean anything then. If this will happen under any system, then you should still treat all systems equally. "People will always make things unfair" isn't a defense or an attack[/QUOTE] Yes but if it's harm minimization you're looking at, somebody being an asshole with money is a whole lot better than somebody being an asshole with government. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28331951] coercion exists in all governments. Understand that democratic socialism (which is the only socialism you'll hear anyone except trolls defending on this forum) is not a radical ideology. There is still a market, but within the society there are many "socialized"* elements. Not just socialized education and transportation (which we already have in america), but also, possibly, including things like socialized medicine, higher education, and insurance. It is simply that things that are deemed to be very important to society are not left in the hands of the stock market, which has a habit of fucking everything up on a pretty regular basis.[/QUOTE] No, actually, there are a variety of factors in the resent collapse of the housing bubble. Many can be attributed to many different factors, i like to blame the central bank and government distorting the market but hey, a theory is like an asshole everybody has one. Coercion indeed exists in all governments but in my opinion, where it isn't needed it shouldn't be applied.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28332279]You will need to cite sources on that or something[/QUOTE] Well past environment does determine how greedy we will be but also so does your current environment. So while being raised by a loving family will have you steal apples left the only true way to make sure no one ever steals apples is to make sure they all already have them. You get what I'm saying? A hungry person will steal food but his raising will make him less inclined to do so.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28332279]Yes but if it's harm minimization you're looking at, somebody being an asshole with money is a whole lot better than somebody being an asshole with government.[/QUOTE] Someone with money has no safeguards. Government officials are restricted by the legislative branches, the judicial branches along with the constitution and other laws, plus if they become too tyrannical then the public can throw them out of office and they are well within their rights to do so. A man with money must obey only the laws of a society that apply to ordinary citizens, meaning his power given through money comes with no strings attached. There is not even any way to strip them of this power unlike government officials.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;28332398]Someone with money has no safeguards. Government officials are restricted by the legislative branches, the judicial branches along with the constitution and other laws, plus if they become too tyrannical then the public can throw them out of office and they are well within their rights to do so. A man with money must obey only the laws of a society that apply to ordinary citizens, meaning his power given through money comes with no strings attached. There is not even any way to strip them of this power unlike government officials.[/QUOTE] With laws in place and him following the law of the ordinary man, he can't kill like a government does, he can't coerce like a government does, he can't build an army nor can he rob people of their fortunes. I'm perfectly fine if some asshole wants to buy 40 Ferraris, that doesn't effect me at all, so long as the way he obtained that money was peaceful and not against any law.