|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 2, 2014 18:31:49 GMT -5
There are a bunch of articles in the media screaming that this is some sort of disaster. Here is an example:
But if people acquire their money honestly, what exactly is wrong with them getting richer? They are not doing that at the expense of anyone else.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2014 21:58:08 GMT -5
Your article answered your question. Unless, of course, you believe in an oligarchy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 2, 2014 23:31:29 GMT -5
No Lily, the article didn't answer the question at all. The article makes the assumption that if some people are getting richer, then other people have to be getting poorer. That idea comes from Marx and Engles in the early 1800's. Since then though, the rich got richer, and the poor also got a lot richer too. In China and India, some people became billionaires in the last 30 years. At the same time, over 100 million Indians and 300 million Chinese were raised out of poverty. I posted on this before.
The free market is not a zero sum game.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2014 23:41:11 GMT -5
We read two different articles, Bob. I'm just sorry I wasted my time. My bad. It won't happen again. Anyhow no one else was going to.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 3, 2014 11:47:57 GMT -5
In the thread “Are Most “scientific” results wrong?” ( unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/670/most-scientific-results-wrong ) Bob wrote: “From my experience, ideologies have a "sticking power." My father was a lifelong communist party member. I grew up reading the Daily Worker every day. Any arguments contradicting the view that history was on our side were brushed away as coming from capitalist apologists.” No offense intended, Bob, but you seem to take a similar stance regarding unrestrained capitalism. In this thread, Bob said: But if people acquire their money honestly, what exactly is wrong with them getting richer? They are not doing that at the expense of anyone else. But they are making money honestly where "honestly" is defined as playing by the rules within a system that they themselves have skewed in their own favor through the influence of their enormous wealth on government and economic policies throughout the world. Rigging the system in one's own favor does not strike me as honest at all, and does strike me as being at the expense of others, both economically and politically.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Feb 3, 2014 12:57:20 GMT -5
Just wondering who it is that skewed the rules to work in their own favor? I would think that only the government could change rules and when they change them those rules apply to everyone. How does a person rig the system to work in just their favor?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 3, 2014 13:04:46 GMT -5
Just wondering who it is that skewed the rules to work in their own favor? I would think that only the government could change rules and when they change them those rules apply to everyone. How does a person rig the system to work in just their favor? Enormous wealth gives those who have it a lot of influence over politics.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Feb 3, 2014 13:37:09 GMT -5
Well, I can understand that but even if they influenced them....it doesn't mean the rules that get changed apply only to them. If it's a rule, it's a rule. If it's in their favor, fine...but wouldn't it work the same in everyone else's favor as well?
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 3, 2014 15:30:31 GMT -5
tricia, ray is absolutely right. The uber wealthy just don't influence, they own. Go back to when labor unions were forming. The capitalists owned the police, whose superiors took orders from the capitalists. Union busting, breaking heads, influencing labor to "behave." Money, power, does more than 'influence'. The government is one more thing they take ownership of. Rules which become laws are written by the corporations they affect, whether it is autos, pharmaceuticals, big oil, etc. These people are "requested" by the government to impact upcoming laws. I don't believe, like Bob that the rich hurt no one, Oh Yes they do. The expense is low wages; landlords; affecting environment, roads, transportation, ETC etc etc. We owe our souls to the company store.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Feb 3, 2014 15:57:05 GMT -5
tricia, ray is absolutely right. The uber wealthy just don't influence, they own. Go back to when labor unions were forming. The capitalists owned the police, whose superiors took orders from the capitalists. Union busting, breaking heads, influencing labor to "behave." Money, power, does more than 'influence'. The government is one more thing they take ownership of. Rules which become laws are written by the corporations they affect, whether it is autos, pharmaceuticals, big oil, etc. These people are "requested" by the government to impact upcoming laws. I don't believe, like Bob that the rich hurt no one, Oh Yes they do. The expense is low wages; landlords; affecting environment, roads, transportation, ETC etc etc. We owe our souls to the company store. Well, maybe it's hard for me to even wrap my mind around just how super rich the super rich really are. I just assume that the rules that are made are made for everyone and that everyone has the same chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 16:19:16 GMT -5
Tricia, watch this video to have an idea how rich the super rich really are.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 3, 2014 16:34:41 GMT -5
tricia: "Well, maybe it's hard for me to even wrap my mind around just how super rich the super rich really are. I just assume that the rules that are made are made for everyone and that everyone has the same chance."
tricia, they are richer than whole countries! You read Zak's article that you can stuff the richest people unto One Bus & these few are richer than half the earth! I'm paraphrasing, possibly a bit of exaggeration, but go back & read it.
That does not by any means say our lives and efforts are worth nothing, but I'm talking actual wealth & what they OWN!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 18:08:37 GMT -5
In the thread “Are Most “scientific” results wrong?” ( unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/670/most-scientific-results-wrong ) Bob wrote: “From my experience, ideologies have a "sticking power." My father was a lifelong communist party member. I grew up reading the Daily Worker every day. Any arguments contradicting the view that history was on our side were brushed away as coming from capitalist apologists.” No offense intended, Bob, but you seem to take a similar stance regarding unrestrained capitalism. No offense taken, Ray. But what you say here is an Ad Hominem. You are analyzing me instead of giving evidence that my view is wrong. Are you claiming that Steve Jobs and Mike Dell made their money by changing the rules of the system? How could that be possible since they both started out with no money? Dell started Dell Computers in his dorm room! Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 18:15:57 GMT -5
Just wondering who it is that skewed the rules to work in their own favor? I would think that only the government could change rules and when they change them those rules apply to everyone. How does a person rig the system to work in just their favor? Enormous wealth gives those who have it a lot of influence over politics. So you are saying that the government is a tool of the rich? Is that correct? And your solution is to make this tool of the rich bigger and stronger? Does that sound like a good course of action? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 18:19:41 GMT -5
tricia, ray is absolutely right. The uber wealthy just don't influence, they own. Go back to when labor unions were forming. The capitalists owned the police, whose superiors took orders from the capitalists. Union busting, breaking heads, influencing labor to "behave." Money, power, does more than 'influence'. The government is one more thing they take ownership of. Rules which become laws are written by the corporations they affect, whether it is autos, pharmaceuticals, big oil, etc. These people are "requested" by the government to impact upcoming laws. I don't believe, like Bob that the rich hurt no one, Oh Yes they do. The expense is low wages; landlords; affecting environment, roads, transportation, ETC etc etc. We owe our souls to the company store. Joan, I didn't say that the rich hurt no one. What I did say is that by itself, the act of being rich hurts no one. How exactly did Steve Jobs hurt you? What did he do? What laws did he write? How are you worse off because of him? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 18:20:46 GMT -5
Tricia, watch this video to have an idea how rich the super rich really are. And the fact they are so rich hurts you.....how exactly? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 18:21:48 GMT -5
tricia: "Well, maybe it's hard for me to even wrap my mind around just how super rich the super rich really are. I just assume that the rules that are made are made for everyone and that everyone has the same chance." tricia, they are richer than whole countries! You read Zak's article that you can stuff the richest people unto One Bus & these few are richer than half the earth! I'm paraphrasing, possibly a bit of exaggeration, but go back & read it. That does not by any means say our lives and efforts are worth nothing, but I'm talking actual wealth & what they OWN! And their wealth hurts you...how? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 18:50:05 GMT -5
tricia: "Well, maybe it's hard for me to even wrap my mind around just how super rich the super rich really are. I just assume that the rules that are made are made for everyone and that everyone has the same chance." tricia, they are richer than whole countries! You read Zak's article that you can stuff the richest people unto One Bus & these few are richer than half the earth! I'm paraphrasing, possibly a bit of exaggeration, but go back & read it. That does not by any means say our lives and efforts are worth nothing, but I'm talking actual wealth & what they OWN! And their wealth hurts you...how? Bob t hurts the whole F--King economy when CEO's make 300% or more over what the average worker does and the minimum wage hasn't been raised for seven or eight years. When the middle class and lower don't have the means to purchase goods, the economy sucks! And what is wrong with you that you don't know that??? Why do you think the job situation is the way it is? When revenues are down, who's going to hire? Huh? Sure, your rich idols can spend and open up businesses, but who the hell is going to buy!!! Oh, but they just take they're products globally and the U.S. and it's people can just go to hell. Which I believe you'd love.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 19:11:26 GMT -5
And their wealth hurts you...how? Bob t hurts the whole F--King economy when CEO's make 300% or more over what the average worker does and the minimum wage hasn't been raised for seven or eight years. When the middle class and lower don't have the means to purchase goods, the economy sucks! And what is wrong with you that you don't know that??? Why do you think the job situation is the way it is? When revenues are down, who's going to hire? Huh? Sure, your rich idols can spend and open up businesses, but who the hell is going to buy!!! Oh, but they just take they're products globally and the U.S. and it's people can just go to hell. Which I believe you'd love. First of all Lily, most of the richest 1% are not CEO's. Most of them own small businesses, or are doctors, lawyers, actors, and athletes. How does their being rich hurt you? Yes, the middle class is suffering and the economy sucks. That's because of rotten government policies. The government is inflating the currency to make their donors on Wall Street happy. But that's not the free market, and it's not how people like Steve Jobs got rich. I think the job situation is the way it is also because of rotten government policies. The federal deficit is enormous. That's not because of rich people making money. As for rich people opening businesses, what's wrong with that? That creates jobs right here. Yes, the USA and its people are going to hell, but since I'm one of those people, that doesn't make me happy at all. Why is the country going to hell? Politicians have to pay off the people who helped them get into office. This takes money,and taxes cannot be raised too much or too fast because voters will get mad. So they borrow the money. The principal isn't due for 30 years. By that time, it's another politician's problem. This scam has been working for the last 50 years, but now the national debt is too high and the game is almost over. The problem is that politicians can't stop. This means the country is heading for a major crisis. That doesn't make me happy, Lily. Remember that I live here too and this crisis will also be affecting me and my family. What we all have to do is take whatever precautions we can to make sure we can get through. That is why I am doing what I can to warn people. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 19:14:51 GMT -5
I think you are being just a little bit disingenuous here, Bob. I am in favour of free market capitalism, but as I think we established on another thread, there ain't no such animal. Or if there is, it's on the endangered species list. What we have instead is a semblance of free market capitalism, but with a bunch of mechanisms in place that are designed to protect the interests of the very rich, including multinational corporations.
The fact that somebody has a million dollars, or a hundred million dollars, doesn't hurt anyone, nor does the fact that one person has this money deprive other people of it. As you say, capitalism is not a zero sum game.
However, it is not true to say that the super wealthy (primarily corporations) do not harm people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. They do; and they do it by lobbying and bribing politicians to pass laws that are favourable to their company and to their own financial interests. This can range from tax structures to minimum wages, job security, insurance requirements, compensation tariffs, health and safety rules and so on. The conditions that workers are obliged to accept, and the wages they are paid, rarely if ever reflect free market forces, but instead are regulated from the top by companies that have a powerful influence over politicians and entire governments. Of course these companies are going to use their influence to ensure that workers' wages are kept low, and that most of the profits go straight to the top.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 19:25:04 GMT -5
Well, I see we're bob, bob, bobbing along. I agree with some of what you say. But the small business owners that you cited are also hurt because of wealth inequity. Why? Because their prospective customers don't have enough discretionary purchase power. And you know damn well we're not talking about doctors, lawyers and other well-paid professionals. We're talking about the average person who has been screwed way too long. Let's call it purchase power inequality and it's not because of professionals. It's the CEO's who want to make more of a buck by outsourcing to other countries so they don't have to pay decent wages to the folks here in the U.S. although they expect them to buy their products (with monopoly money, perhaps?). And, by the way, these politicians that you've been talking about--that you actually like--the extreme conservatives--would love to take away Medicare and Social Security. And they are backed up by the !% like the Koch brothers. That, my friend, along with a sinking economy, does hurt me personally. Not you, it seems. You don't need all that frivolous entitlement stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 21:43:36 GMT -5
I think you are being just a little bit disingenuous here, Bob. I am in favour of free market capitalism, but as I think we established on another thread, there ain't no such animal. Yes. That's right. But there ought to be such an animal. We may never get a pure free market, but we can get closer. In the last few decades, India and China moved closer to the free market. Of course, they are by no means anywhere near an actual free market. But by instituting some free market reforms, hundreds of millions of people in both countries were lifted out of poverty. Yes, but most likely a temporary situation. Over the past century, many countries have moved back and forth with government controls. The problem with government controls is that they keep growing until they collapse of their own weight. Yes. I agree with you here 100%. Yes. Exactly. Yes. I agree. I never said that the rich never harm the poor. What I did say is that the act of making money, by itself, does not hurt the poor. It's not a crime to honestly make money, even a huge amount of money. As for the rest of what you say here, it is unfortunately all too true. This is crony capitalism. For example, that protest against the 1% was not quite accurate. It is more like 0.001%. A bunch of very rich people on Wall Street have used their control of the Federal Reserve and their contacts in Washington to manipulate government policy. Basically, all they are doing now is shuffling paper and making enormous profits...at the public's expense. This is why government power has to be limited. As long as government is powerful, as long as government is expected to do more and more, there will always be powerful who will appropriate that power for themselves. The benefits of government programs go to those with the most political pull. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2014 22:05:30 GMT -5
Well, I see we're bob, bob, bobbing along. I agree with some of what you say. But the small business owners that you cited are also hurt because of wealth inequity. Why? Because their prospective customers don't have enough discretionary purchase power. Once again Lily, the reason they don't have enough discretionary income is due to bad economic policies of the government. I agree. But it's government policies that are doing this.. The government is inflating the currency. At the same time, they are keeping the interest rates too low so that you get nothing if you have a savings account. People are being forced to put their hard earned money into the stock market. The result is that the market went too high and soon it will crash. Remember this is a direct result of government policy. No rich CEO is devaluing the currency or forcing people to put money into the stock market. That's not as simple as it seems, Lily. Let's say that you own a business here in the USA and you pay your workers decent wages. One of your competitors shifts production overseas and cuts labor costs. Now your competitor can sell products for less than you are charging and still make a profit. What do you do? You have two choices: send your production overseas too, or go out of business. First of all Lily, I am NOT a conservative. I support a woman's right to her own body, and that includes abortion rights. I also favor Gay Marriage. That is a civil rights issue and it should have been done years ago. I also believe the theory of evolution is correct. As for Medicare, Obamacare shifts several hundred million dollars out of Medicare to support Obamacare. The elderly will be facing reduced cane and benefits. The money that should go to the Social Security trust fund has been mixed with the general budget ever since Nixon. It is replaced with Treasury Bonds. So basically Social Security is being "secured" with IOU's. If a private company did that, their officers would be sent to jail. But the government (literally) makes its own laws. In short, the greatest threat to Medicare and Social Security isn't coming from a bunch of rich CEO's. It's coming from the government, and from years of bad rotten policies. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 16:15:10 GMT -5
Said like a true Libertarian who longs for the days of cave living.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 4, 2014 16:35:01 GMT -5
Said like a true Libertarian who longs for the days of cave living. Funny. That's what I thought when I read your comment in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 16:54:24 GMT -5
Said like a true Libertarian who longs for the days of cave living. Funny. That's what I thought when I read your comment in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread Well, spit it out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 17:39:14 GMT -5
Funny. That's what I thought when I read your comment in the Philip Seymour Hoffman thread Well, spit it out. What, you afraid of Debutante that you have to hide out here? And, besides, you do vote right? And you know how to get in touch with your congressmen/women? So, what's the problem? Or am I just that important of an influence?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 4, 2014 22:45:31 GMT -5
Said like a true Libertarian who longs for the days of cave living. Actually, Libertarians tend to be more productive because they believe in taking care of themselves rather than letting a government do it for them. If anything is going to send us back to the caves, it is present government policies. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 22:55:38 GMT -5
Said like a true Libertarian who longs for the days of cave living. Actually, Libertarians tend to be more productive because they believe in taking care of themselves rather than letting a government do it for them. If anything is going to send us back to the caves, it is present government policies. Bob So isn't that what I said? Little cave families taking care of their own. What's the difference in what you say?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 4, 2014 23:27:32 GMT -5
Actually, Libertarians tend to be more productive because they believe in taking care of themselves rather than letting a government do it for them. If anything is going to send us back to the caves, it is present government policies. Bob So isn't that what I said? Little cave families taking care of their own. What's the difference in what you say? Libertarians don't just take care of their own. They take care of their communities and country too. I see this every day when I take a walk past the Metropolitan Museum of Art and see a sign in front of the new plaza donated by David Koch, or when I pass by Lincoln Center and see the sign for the Koch theater. Libertarians usually do the right thing, Lily. But we do it because we want to, not because we are forced to. Bob
|
|