Is it true that capitalism does poorly when a small amount of people own a majority of the capital?
Printable View
Is it true that capitalism does poorly when a small amount of people own a majority of the capital?
Isn't that the definition?
I thought the definition was somewhere in the realm of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
A system in which property,capital and distribution are privately or corporately owned and have inherent rights to maintain that system.
;D Yeah, thats what I said.
When all the economic growth a country produces goes to a very small class of rich people, stupid things happen. The rich can't possibly consume enough to spend all this money, so they start casting around for something, anything, to do with all the cash they have sloshing around. And since, in an ever more unequal economy that nonetheless preaches ever rising living standards, the low-paid need payday loans to keep up and the stagnating middle class needs to borrow money on the strngth of the appreciating value of their house, that's where their money goes. It still gets spent, eventually, on things like cars and food and new furniture, because that's what middle class people mostly spend their money on, but instead of being spent directly by people who are earning it, it gets funneled downward to them via increased debt and financial legerdemain that extracts more and more money upward from poor to rich with each cycle. That's not sustainable.
Median income growth produces not just growth, but stable growth for everyone, the rich included. Top end growth, almost by definition, produces unstable, unsustainable growth. Modern economies are driven by consumer spending, and if you want consumer spending to increase consistently you have to increase consumer income. So the low/mid paid workers need a big tax cut and the wealthy need a big tax increase.
I thought within any type of government that a small amout of people control the majority of the currency, is there one that does not. Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, etc.
I would disagree here, in Communism and Socialism everything is public, so essentially everyone owns everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
In Facism there are systems of economic planning and price fixing, and nationalized certain industries to benefit the whole.
Literally hundreds of scholarly economic papers and studies have been done on such things.
All of life is about balance that being said
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"
For all it's faults and shortcomings...ask anyone who has ever lived under a dictator which they prefer...
Thats is very true , but i think we as the people could evolve a different way of being. :-\maybe. Nothing can be ran fair with a top man and a pyramid scale down and out,which is what every system becomes. If we could build something that grows from within the masses upwards,we all could have a hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
Here's a chart showing the unequal blessings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.co.../inctop400.gif
Capitalism feeds off of natural human instincts and socialism is more of a "In a perfect world EVERYBODY would have a million dollars" but that doesn't factor into account that if everyone actually had a million dollars then a million dollars would cease to be a million dollars the way we think of it, it would be more like toilet paper....it would be worthless.
I think you are confusing this argument, I am not advocating pulling a Robin Hood for Socialism. I believe in indivduals owning property. However, there is an issue when that much of the property is in the hands of the few. It clogs the system, because the wealth is not flowing, as a result of that the country is less productive. I believe that stagnation of wealth and dependence on foreign banks is as dangerous as any terrorist organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
:cool: I would like to wipe my ass one million times on seperate dollar bills, American dollars, hmm luxury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Yeah it becomes more about control over and power over others.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI think you are confusing this argument, I am not advocating pulling a Robin Hood for Socialism. I believe in indivduals owning property. However, there is an issue when that much of the property is in the hands of the few. It clogs the system, because the wealth is not flowing, as a result of that the country is less productive. I believe that stagnation of wealth and dependence on foreign banks is as dangerous as any terrorist organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Hey don't get me wrong, balance is everything. Look at Mexico, Russia, and Cuba...their revolutions were created basically out of having no middle class and having the greedy fat cats at the top.
I'm merely suggesting Capitalsim is an easier fit for human nature than Socialism simply because you're not punished for wanting more or striving to achive a higher goal than what society has set for you.
So I guess all I'm saying is as long as the money is tied up in that small group, it's gonna be hard for America. And the fact that China is buyin up real estate here, doesn't make me feel safe, or even OK with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
LOL That chart is very effective! I was laughing like hell as I was scrolling down and down and down....;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI would disagree here, in Communism and Socialism everything is public, so essentially everyone owns everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
In Facism there are systems of economic planning and price fixing, and nationalized certain industries to benefit the whole.
Killersheep we have to send you to Cuba for a week, first off everything in Communism is not public, that could not be further from the truth. In Communism all assets belong to the state, everything is state controlled. Fidel Castro does not need million dollor checks in his name because he is the state, he has total control over all it's currency, assets, investments, military, mass media, etc. He delegates certain control too a small group of each of those sections and that small group runs the country only answering to that dictator. There are plenty of Cuban Americans in the country right now, you can give them your definition of Communism and they would tell you that you counldn't be more wrong, Communism is alot more top heavy than Capatalism, it's not even close. Like I said before it's like that in every government.
I live in a country, and perhaps like many other countries, where the wealth gap between the rich and poor is only getting wider. Within a collectivist society this is generally percieved as being an accepted state. The Haves and the Have nots as it were. I dont like it, but its seen as being the natural order of things here. You have your station.
Korea has become an extremely expensive place to live in in recent years. I would definitely say food costs are significantly more than those in the UK now. The Koreans who make a living by driving buses, working in offices...they must have a hard time making ends meet. The minimum wage here is about 4000 won, which is about 2 pounds an hour! There are so many jobs where the minimum wage is the norm like supermarkets, local stores, general retail, restaurants. I have absolutely no idea how these people can make ends meet at all. That is seriously awful money considering how much things cost here. But there is no sign of revolution, we had huge protests about the import of US beef. No sign of any civil unrest over the costs of living for the working classes. It seems to be a case of "this is our lot...just keep on keeping on".
One of the reasons costs are so high here is because Koreans like to fleece each other badly. There was one report saying how its possible to ship in a brand new hyundai car (can't remember the type) to Korea from the states and pay the shipping and excise duties and it still works out 10,000 dollars cheaper than what a Korean would pay for the car in Korea. Madness. There are very few imports here. Those that are here are seen as luxuries and sold at absurd prices. Korean companies rule the roost and the quality is low and prices too extreme. Korean electronics are sold at far higher prices than the US despite incomes generally being lower here. Koreans dont know any better, its all theyve known. I finally found a place to buy American beef online. They dont sell it in supermarkets because of "consumer sentiment". In other words the middle men make a lot more from limiting the choice and charging top bucks for Korean beef. You will pay 7 dollars for 100 grammes of prime Korean beef in the supermarket. Again the Koreans are quite happy to screw each other badly. Its okay if you are rich, but if you are a normal person, you cant be paying that for beef.
I suppose all that meandering was leading to me saying that unbridled capitalism is not a good thing. What I see here disturbs me somewhat. Yes, Ive paid low taxes and have been able to earn decent money here but Ive done that by teaching and speaking a language they are all eager to learn. Its been easier for me. Ive never really needed to get into the cutthroat battle for survival like so many others do. Korea has the highest suicide rate in the OECD and im pretty sure money issues are a key factor in that. Capitalism is what we have, unchecked capitalism is something that should be controlled. There is no reason why fruit should be a luxury item and too expensive for kids to eat. Its wrong.
That's what you call oligopoly. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Cuba is communist in name only. Truth is no nation is 100% this or that, but by the definition you provided, Cuba is a dictatorship, not communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BookkeeperQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI would disagree here, in Communism and Socialism everything is public, so essentially everyone owns everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
In Facism there are systems of economic planning and price fixing, and nationalized certain industries to benefit the whole.
Killersheep we have to send you to Cuba for a week, first off everything in Communism is not public, that could not be further from the truth. In Communism all assets belong to the state, everything is state controlled. Fidel Castro does not need million dollor checks in his name because he is the state, he has total control over all it's currency, assets, investments, military, mass media, etc. He delegates certain control too a small group of each of those sections and that small group runs the country only answering to that dictator. There are plenty of Cuban Americans in the country right now, you can give them your definition of Communism and they would tell you that you counldn't be more wrong, Communism is alot more top heavy than Capatalism, it's not even close. Like I said before it's like that in every government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeThat's what you call oligopoly. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Actually an oligopoly is when a small amount of people rule.
I think the correct term is oligarchy...like anARCHY and monARCHY.
and to addQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers
well either of those is bad ;)
I watched a video in one of my classes today that was interesting it showed that it's important to move between government rebulation and unregulated markets to keep competition alive and keep a healthy capitalist system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
I stand corrected. Sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkYQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Here's John McCain's original view on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh9_QvJicy4
oops
....still better than this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM
Besides, being punished for exceeding society's goals will, in the long run, do very little to help the poor who have failed to meet those goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
There'll have to be quite a large redistribution of wealth over the next few years or the US economy won't be able to grow very well. The redistribution of the last 30 years (all to the top) will have to be reversed so that the money generated by the economy will go to people who'll actually spend it, thus creating more economic growth. Obama is dead right about this and the bald plumber wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
....talk to me in 4 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Good to see you back on two feet. I trust you didnt spill a drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
You'd love it Booze, when i was a younger cat,I went off a bar stool backwards hit the carpet with my shoulder blades and didnt spill anything out of my pot of beer.
Got cheered by the bar for that,one of my proudest moments;).
Are you seriously questioning my Infallibility? How well does that always work out for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle....talk to me in 4 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I've already shown you at least once why I'm right, using facts and evidence. You know the one time in history when the top 1% of Americans' share of the wealth was this high previously? Just before the 1929 Depression, something we still stand a chance of repeating currently. The median wage in America has stayed effectively static since 1980 and the US consumer, 71% of US GDP, is now tapped out. Both parents in families now work, both work much longer and harder, both have gone into debt over the past few years just to pay the bills, and now the US consumer doesn't have any money anymore. The 1980-2008 redistribution of wealth to the wealthy has to be reversed othersie 71% of US GDP is going stand still and worse. If you're going to reply to what I have Written do so using facts and evidence only.
That is one seriously funky post. :appl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAre you seriously questioning my Infallibility? How well does that always work out for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle....talk to me in 4 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I've already shown you at least once why I'm right, using facts and evidence. You know the one time in history when the top 1% of Americans' share of the wealth was this high previously? Just before the 1929 Depression, something we still stand a chance of repeating currently. The median wage in America has stayed effectively static since 1980 and the US consumer, 71% of US GDP, is now tapped out. Both parents in families now work, both work much longer and harder, both have gone into debt over the past few years just to pay the bills, and now the US consumer doesn't have any money anymore. The 1980-2008 redistribution of wealth to the wealthy has to be reversed othersie 71% of US GDP is going stand still and worse. If you're going to reply to what I have Written do so using facts and evidence only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThat is one seriously funky post. :appl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAre you seriously questioning my Infallibility? How well does that always work out for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
I've already shown you at least once why I'm right, using facts and evidence. You know the one time in history when the top 1% of Americans' share of the wealth was this high previously? Just before the 1929 Depression, something we still stand a chance of repeating currently. The median wage in America has stayed effectively static since 1980 and the US consumer, 71% of US GDP, is now tapped out. Both parents in families now work, both work much longer and harder, both have gone into debt over the past few years just to pay the bills, and now the US consumer doesn't have any money anymore. The 1980-2008 redistribution of wealth to the wealthy has to be reversed othersie 71% of US GDP is going stand still and worse. If you're going to reply to what I have Written do so using facts and evidence only.
Miles what the hell you doin in the land of the far east, it's time to come home player
The way things are in the world its probably not the best of times to return. And even if I do come home and manage to find a decent job, Im not happy with the prospect of being taxed to death and having to pay outrageous rents. Its a crap system and I absolutely refuse to partake in that kind of life. I like a lot of things from home, but there are elements that Ive come to detest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BookkeeperQuote:
Originally Posted by milesThat is one seriously funky post. :appl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Miles what the hell you doin in the land of the far east, it's time to come home player
I was planning to come home for a long trip after I stopped working but the Korean Won has gone into labour against the pound. Im not too happy about my money now having lost a lot of its value because of exchange rate fluctuations. It will be cheaper and much warmer to head off South this winter. Any trip home can wait until things even out. And Im getting the relaxation I really needed. Apart from my studies and part time teaching Ive really taken my foot off the pedal.
Im beginning to think of myself as a Nomad, forever destined to wander through the wilderness. Ahem. ;D
Kirkland, oh I totally agree, let's raid the accounts of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and all those other evil rich people and then hand out money to everyone who haven't earned it and who don't deserve it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
The War on Poverty failed horribly....it tried to redistribute wealth as many Democrat programs have tried before but if those programs had worked then we wouldn't be listening to Barrack or you crying foul right now.
Wealth is not a right, it's a goal plenty of people have, and it's achieveable here in America but it is not a right for everyone to be wealthy.