US inequality at historic high, surpassing Roaring ’20s - Polidicks

Capitalism is an inherently flawed system as it unabashedly puts profit margins and artificial economic endeavors on the highest shelf of priority and supports political systems that abuse and marginalize the poor and uninformed. America is basically the monument to this attitude, and the big mistake here is assuming that capitalism is great but it's ideals are abused. It doesn't have ideals- it is pure and simply a system of exploitation, any benefits it brings are brought about by forces other then capitalism; compromises with socialism to appease the workers, or by technology which is not inherently attached to capitalism any more than democracy is. Trying to piecemeal put socialism into a system that actively resists attempts to equalize and enfranchise people is like trying to cure cancer with bandaids, and we'll just have greater and greater inequality until we prioritize reason and humanity over money.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42159085]I'm sure poor people would disagree with you too. Both of us are right in our own respects. Yes, Capitalism got us here, but so did slavery. Just because something has contributed to our progress doesn't mean we should cling on to it forever. If it was many thousands of years ago, you would be the one saying "But look how far bartering has gotten us!" and I would be the one telling you that it isn't feasible anymore, and that we need a newer and more intelligent system to deal with our resource distribution. (Please note that I do not advocate relinquishing resources to the state as in communism)[/QUOTE] Poor people only disagree because they don't know what it was like to live through most of human history. The average person in government defined poverty has cable TV and a video game system, for example ([URL="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty#_ftn3)*"]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty#_ftn3[/URL], See final chart) I don't care what you think about the Heritage Foundation, but all the numbers are cited from government sources. So it really doesn't matter.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;42159135] Trying to piecemeal put socialism into a system that actively resists attempts to equalize and enfranchise people is like trying to cure cancer with bandaids, and we'll just have greater and greater inequality until we prioritize reason and humanity over money.[/QUOTE] The United States seems to be doing pretty well with this strategy so far and Nordic countries seem to take it a step further with a full hybrid system, marrying relatively free (compared to socialism) markets with extensive social welfare policy. Like I said above, I don't think capitalism is perfect. You seem to be setting it pretty low though and implying there is a better system. Do you know of one or are you just saying we (read: someone else) needs to create one?

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;42159135]compromises with socialism to appease the workers, or by technology which is not inherently attached to capitalism any more than democracy is. Trying to piecemeal put socialism into a system that actively resists attempts to equalize and enfranchise people is like trying to cure cancer with bandaids, and we'll just have greater and greater inequality until we prioritize reason and humanity over money.[/QUOTE] I agree, regulation and proper benefits must be added to make sure things like inequality become less of an issue. Canada has a decent mix of capitalist and socialist policy, although it leans quite heavily to socialism. An example is I wish there was the possibility of privatized healthcare, a sort of half and half system the U.S. could easily adopt. Also, there are certain monopolies that drive up prices compared to the U.S., surprisingly. But to be more focused on the topic at hand, the middle class is generally stronger in Canada than the U.S. Raidyr also had some valid points.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;42158800]Labor, like other goods, has a supply and demand curve. I've attempted to make a crude representation of this. [IMG]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5439/br75.jpg[/IMG] $7.25 per hour is the current federal minimum wage. Some states have raised their minimum wage. Where the quantity demanded and quantity supplied lines intersect, that means the market is in equilibrium. If the government installed a price floor let's say at $15 per hour, this creates a surplus of employees because the quantity demanded is less than before, but the quanitity supplied is higher than before. This means there are more people willing to work at $15/hr, but there is a lower demand for labor at $15/hr.[/quote] Yes I understand how supply/demand works. The point is that if wages go up and a bunch of people lose their jobs because companies downsize, there will be loads of still employed people who are making more money. They will spend this money and this spending will create jobs. The jobs created will be more or less the same number as the ones destroyed. [quote]That isn't what a flat tax is at all. If you made taxes 10% across the board, the rich still pay more. If you have two people that make $50,000 and $500,000, the person that makes 500k still puts more in the pot than the person that makes 50k. And another thing, you can only, by law, donate $2,000 to a politician. All types of donating can be written off of your taxes, rich or poor. The ultra rich often pay a lower percentage in taxes than their tax bracket because once you become a CEO, or something of the sort, you don't always get paid like most regular people. Sometimes you get paid with corporate shares, ect, which are taxed at a different rate than dollars.[/quote] Except it means revenue is down. In order to cover this, the flat tax rate will have to go up, and this will hit the poor the hardest. Flat taxes have historically always relied on the lowest percentiles to make up the bulk of taxes. [editline]12th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;42158984]The issue with capitalism is that it literally give no fucks about the people who don't want to be rich. Slowly but surely everyone who isn't a massive materialistic prick will die out. Do you really want that?[/QUOTE] This isn't how economics works.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42159201]Poor people only disagree because they don't know what it was like to live through most of human history. The average person in government defined poverty has cable TV and a video game system, for example ([URL="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty#_ftn3)*"]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty#_ftn3[/URL], See final chart) I don't care what you think about the Heritage Foundation, but all the numbers are cited from government sources. So it really doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] I agree with the idea that the poor in America are doing way better than the poor in socialist or communist countries (especially historically; American's never had to worry about entire villages dying off because the government took all their wheat) but I'm not a fan of the "They have microwaves, they can't be poor!" talking point the right wants to push.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42159201]Poor people only disagree because they don't know what it was like to live through most of human history. The average person in poverty has cable TV and a video game system, for example ([URL="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty#_ftn3)*"]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty#_ftn3[/URL], See final chart) I don't care what you think about the Heritage Foundation, but all the numbers are cited from government sources. So it really doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] "They have Cable therefore they are fine where they are" Very well, let's say I grant you that there is no good reason why we should enfranchise the poor anywhere past cable. Then let me follow a different line of argumentation; The Poor Africans have little to no money. Problems can be solved by Companies. The Poor Africans have a real problem. The Rich Westerners have much money. Someone with much money can pay more than someone with little to no money. Companies do things that are profitable. It is profitable to do things that pay more money. The Rich Westerners have a trivial problem. Therefore the Company solves trivial problems. Therefore the Company does not solve real problems. "The man who seeks to be rich is like the man who drinks seawater, he will drink and drink until he perishes of thirst"

[QUOTE]Capitalism is an inherently flawed system as it unabashedly puts profit margins and artificial economic endeavors on the highest shelf of priority[/QUOTE] I wonder if you knew there is a HUGE philosophical background to this...starting near the protestant reform.... Its driving me mad seeing people say "a little bit of socialism". Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state in representation of the working class. Capitalism is the private ownership of them. What you are surely trying to say, is: "statism" or "state stimulus". And when people talk about "Laissez Faire", do they REALLY understand what it means? "let it be done" IE: "State, stay away from business. Fuck off dude" Did you know the financial/banking services of the US are the most regulated of the world? Did you know how huge agriculture tariffs are in the UE? Whenever you guys say "A bit of statism/protectionism does not come in bad" you are messing with other countries such as mine. [QUOTE]Capitalism is an inherently flawed system[/QUOTE] Every system will be inherently flawed. If people have different viewpoints and stances/attitudes, everything will be flawed. LOL at marxism, coming from the idea that everything is material and has no essence, yet claims things have an inherent value given by work.....

My logic notation could be more polished, but you guys get the idea.

Let me put it this way: There are some valid points to be had in mixing some pieces of socialism in needed services, but Canada took it a little overboard. I really wish there was a private healthcare system to compliment everything, and this would ease use on the public sector since those who can afford it will go to a private hospital for possibly better care. This makes a point a clear of the old saying "Too much of a good thing is bad" It's good for there to be safety nets, but the government not only has a hard time with healthcare alone [8 hour waiting times] but you pay for it anyway in the form of tax. Capitalism, while the name is becoming a taboo to the point where "Free Market" is becoming a better term, is the least flawed system you can find when managed effectively. [Least flawed, not flawless]

[QUOTE=lavacano;42156324]So freeze the prices of goods. Make it so the only place corporations can cut spending is the wages of executives. They don't need a fleet of yachts.[/QUOTE] but but but JOB CREATORS

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;42160651]but but but JOB CREATORS[/QUOTE] No such thing.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42159315]I agree with the idea that the poor in America are doing way better than the poor in socialist or communist countries (especially historically; American's never had to worry about entire villages dying off because the government took all their wheat) but I'm not a fan of the "They have microwaves, they can't be poor!" talking point the right wants to push.[/QUOTE] There's a reason I didn't use microwaves as an example. Both cable TV and video game systems are expensive items that are purely for entertainment that also have much cheaper (free) alternatives. Over half the people our government says are in poverty have each of those things. Hell, my family dropped cable for an antenna just to save some money when my dad lost his job for a year. It irks me to think that we, being fairly middle class, went without cable TV to save money just in case when over 60% of people in POVERTY had it.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;42158800]That isn't what a flat tax is at all. If you made taxes 10% across the board, the rich still pay more. If you have two people that make $50,000 and $500,000, the person that makes 500k still puts more in the pot than the person that makes 50k. And another thing, you can only, by law, donate $2,000 to a politician. All types of donating can be written off of your taxes, rich or poor. The ultra rich often pay a lower percentage in taxes than their tax bracket because once you become a CEO, or something of the sort, you don't always get paid like most regular people. Sometimes you get paid with corporate shares, ect, which are taxed at a different rate than dollars.[/QUOTE] Except a flat tax is, by definition, regressive. You can't make it higher than what the lower and middle classes are currently paying without going over by only a negligible amount (how could they afford to pay it otherwise), and if you make it that low the rich will be paying [I]less[/I] tax. The result is an aggregate effect on already underfunded social programmes, and will be detrimental to the livelihoods of those who depend on them to get by, even if they have a comparatively minor amount of 'additional money' from the flat tax.

[QUOTE=Megafan;42160729]Except a flat tax is, by definition, regressive. You can't make it higher than what the lower and middle classes are currently paying without going over by only a negligible amount (how could they afford to pay it otherwise), and if you make it that low the rich will be paying [I]less[/I] tax. The result is an aggregate effect on already underfunded social programmes, and will be detrimental to the livelihoods of those who depend on them to get by, even if they have a comparatively minor amount of 'additional money' from the flat tax.[/QUOTE] "A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases." ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax[/URL]) A flat tax isn't a regressive tax because the rate is constant across all amounts. Also, having a flat tax assumes getting rid of all loop holes for the rich.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;42158476]I honestly would rather be dead than red.[/QUOTE] Did you take a time machine out of the fucking 1980s or something? [editline]11th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42160749]"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases." ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax[/URL]) A flat tax isn't a regressive tax because the rate is constant across all amounts.[/QUOTE] A flat tax is fucking stupid because it takes more money from the middle and lower class even though that's less income for the government in general, because it's somehow "not fair" that the rich have to pay a higher rate for having more money. The reason the rich pay a higher rate is because a percentage of their money is vastly more than the same percentage of a middle class or lower class person's money. They aren't just taking money from people for shits and giggles, taxes pay for things, and the same percentage of a rich person's money will pay for more things than that percentage of a non-rich person's money.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42159273]The United States seems to be doing pretty well with this strategy so far and Nordic countries seem to take it a step further with a full hybrid system, marrying relatively free (compared to socialism) markets with extensive social welfare policy. Like I said above, I don't think capitalism is perfect. You seem to be setting it pretty low though and implying there is a better system. Do you know of one or are you just saying we (read: someone else) needs to create one?[/QUOTE] While I'll fully agree that every system has it's flaws I have both logical and moral problems with capitalism as the basis of a civilized society. I've recently come to find that syndicalist direct democracy makes the best impression and is suitably realistic to apply even to a country with a high-expectation of luxury goods and services like the U.S.; a system where both economics and government are dictated by direct voting and decision making on behalf of the participants. I haven't really scratched the surface, but I think models proposed by Noam Chomsky and the examples of co-op ownership in businesses is a good example of the direction we should take. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism[/url] Do away with the entire middleman of government and executives so to speak.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;42161123]While I'll fully agree that every system has it's flaws I have both logical and moral problems with capitalism as the basis of a civilized society.[/quote] Ah, so what system do you propose? [quote]I've recently come to find that [b]syndicalist direct democracy[/b] makes the best impression and is [b]suitably realistic[/b][/quote] In the trash it goes. [quote]to apply even to a country with a high-expectation of luxury goods and services like the U.S.; a system where both economics and government are dictated by direct voting and decision making on behalf of the participants.[/quote] What do you mean a country with a high expectation of luxury goods? Are you saying that we should reduce living standards in some way in order to increase equality? [quote]I haven't really scratched the surface, but I think models proposed by Noam Chomsky and the examples of co-op ownership in businesses is a good example of the direction we should take. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism[/url] Do away with the entire middleman of government and executives so to speak.[/QUOTE] It's just not feasible. Every attempt at implementation has failed.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42158941]And this is why the monetary system will fail as we march into the future. We can either eliminate the middle class all together and admit defeat as the serf class. Or we can figure out something slightly more intelligent than that.[/QUOTE] What the elite want is a serf class that thinks they are middle class, with all the rights (or lack thereof) that entails. No reason for the peasants to revolt if they think they are doing well (they aren't) and that the benevolent rulers aren't exploiting the fuck out of them (they are).

[QUOTE=Kuro.;42161801]What the elite want is a serf class that thinks they are middle class, with all the rights (or lack thereof) that entails. No reason for the peasants to revolt if they think they are doing well (they aren't) and that the benevolent rulers aren't exploiting the fuck out of them (they are).[/QUOTE] Yo this isn't the 14th century, the feudal system died centuries ago.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42161834]Yo this isn't the 14th century, the feudal system died centuries ago.[/QUOTE] For all intents and purposes the lower class will be like serfs when compared to the elite caste. One will be utterly enslaved by debt and hunger, and the other is free to brush silk between his testicles. Seems pretty much like the 14th century to me. Oh, my bad, we have TV.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42161942]For all intents and purposes the lower class will be like serfs when compared to the elite caste. One will be utterly enslaved by debt and hunger, and the other is free to brush silk between his testicles. Seems pretty much like the 14th century to me. Oh, my bad, we have TV.[/QUOTE] Feudalism is a political system where there is a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations that help to structure society. The peasantry works land for the nobility in return for military protection, the nobility provides goods and military service to their sovereign, and the sovereign holds the right to rule all of them because he was granted the land by a god. Land is distributed based on loyalty, and feudal countries are characterized by agrarian economies, a strong warrior class, and decentralized politics with little to no centralization of any powers. How the fuck does that system resemble the situation we have today, where a majority of the worlds people live in organized states with civil services and bureaucracies, secular justifications for rule of the sovereign, money-based economies, democracy, international diplomacy, standing armies, centralization of power, and the complete liquidation of the peasantry as a class?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42162159]Feudalism is a political system where there is a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations that help to structure society. The peasantry works land for the nobility in return for military protection, the nobility provides goods and military service to their sovereign, and the sovereign holds the right to rule all of them because he was granted the land by a god. Land is distributed based on loyalty, and feudal countries are characterized by agrarian economies, a strong warrior class, and decentralized politics with little to no centralization of any powers. How the fuck does that system resemble the situation we have today, where a majority of the worlds people live in organized states with civil services and bureaucracies, secular justifications for rule of the sovereign, money-based economies, democracy, international diplomacy, standing armies, centralization of power, and the complete liquidation of the peasantry as a class?[/QUOTE] duhhhh, you just have to look at the REAL world! :v:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42162159]Feudalism is a political system where there is a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations that help to structure society. The peasantry works land for the nobility in return for military protection, the nobility provides goods and military service to their sovereign, and the sovereign holds the right to rule all of them because he was granted the land by a god. Land is distributed based on loyalty, and feudal countries are characterized by agrarian economies, a strong warrior class, and decentralized politics with little to no centralization of any powers. How the fuck does that system resemble the situation [b]we have today[/b], where a majority of the worlds people live in organized states with civil services and bureaucracies, secular justifications for rule of the sovereign, money-based economies, democracy, international diplomacy, standing armies, centralization of power, and the complete liquidation of the peasantry as a class?[/QUOTE] It seems that this is what you misread. Let me quote myself for you; [quote]as we march [b]into the future.[/b] We can either eliminate the middle class all together and admit defeat as the serf class.[/quote] I'm not saying we are basically feudal now, I am saying that the bottom class [b]will[/b] be akin to the serf class insofar as their power. If the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, I don't see how it could end well at all. As far as the semantics of the word 'feudal', I obviously did not mean a system where plots of land are ruled by individual lords. Think more globally, with one 'lord'.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42162226]I'm not saying we are basically feudal now, I am saying that the bottom class [b]will[/b] be akin to the serf class insofar as their power. If the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, I don't see how it could end well at all. As far as the semantics of the word 'feudal', I obviously did not mean a system where plots of land are ruled by individual lords.[/quote] This is based off what? What are you using for your prediction? [quote]Think more globally, with one 'lord'.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the dreaded "Jew".

[QUOTE=sgman91;42159003]Capitalism has led to the least suffering to have ever existed in human history. From what I've seen, the largest and most powerful governments on the planet are also the biggest mass murderers of all time (Nazi German, Communist Russia, Communist China, etc.)[/QUOTE] It's questionable at best. Basically ultra capitalist systems do a lot of indirect damage to the populace. Medical insurance is a great example for the US. The lack of it has probably killed or made millions of people suffer. On the other hand dictatorial systems tend to cause a lot of direct suffering at times. Now the question is which is worse in the long run. Ideally you want a system that combines the best of both while ignoring the worst. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;42162226]It seems that this is what you misread. Let me quote myself for you; I'm not saying we are basically feudal now, I am saying that the bottom class [b]will[/b] be akin to the serf class insofar as their power. If the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, I don't see how it could end well at all. As far as the semantics of the word 'feudal', I obviously did not mean a system where plots of land are ruled by individual lords. Think more globally, with one 'lord'.[/QUOTE] Actually the situation looks a bit different right now. The rich are getting rich faster than the poor. The situation of the poor today is on average better than those during the great depression. It's not ideal but in a lot of ways it's better. The rich have just gotten rich much faster and in greater amounts.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42162244] Ah yes, the dreaded "Jew".[/QUOTE] That could be construed as anti-semitic you know? [quote] Some primary causes contributing to the creation and persistence of wealth inequality include: -Monetary policy -Financial Resources -Money Allocation -Higher rate of savings and hence asset accumulation by the wealthy -Higher net rate of return to assets owned by the rich (the wealthy may have special knowledge, and the level of fees and other charges on their savings will be less than those with small investments) -Lower credit costs and credit constraints for the wealthy. Access to credit at lower rates enhances the level of profits and scope of investment opportunities -Inflation -Tax Policy -Decline in unionization Essentially, the wealthy possess greater financial opportunities that allow their money to make more money. Earnings from the stock market or mutual funds are reinvested to produce a larger return. Over time, the sum that is invested becomes progressively more substantial. Those who are not wealthy, however, do not have the resources to enhance their opportunities and improve their economic position. Rather, "after debt payments, poor families are constrained to spend the remaining income on items that will not produce wealth and will depreciate over time."[32] Scholar David B. Grusky notes that "62 percent of households headed by single parents are without savings or other financial assets".[33] Net indebtedness generally prevents the poor from having any opportunity to accumulate wealth and thereby better their conditions.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#Causes_of_wealth_inequality[/url]

I always fou8nd the word "trickle down" economics to be inherently offensive in it's name. Sounds like some sewer rat licking at a gutter pipe for water or something. Very few things that are good "trickle down" other things.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;42162269]It's questionable at best. Basically ultra capitalist systems do a lot of indirect damage to the populace. Medical insurance is a great example for the US. The lack of it has probably killed or made millions of people suffer. On the other hand dictatorial systems tend to cause a lot of direct suffering at times. Now the question is which is worse in the long run. Ideally you want a system that combines the best of both while ignoring the worst.[/QUOTE] The entire medical system we have is a product of capitalism.

automerge