Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

[Smersh]

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

Andrew Walker, BBC



The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute. The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.
There have of course been many studies of worldwide inequality.
But what is new about this report, the authors say, is its coverage.
It deals with all countries in the world - either actual data or estimates based on statistical analysis - and it deals with wealth, where most previous research has looked at income.
What they mean by wealth in this study is what people own, less what they owe - their debts. The assets include land, buildings, animals and financial assets.

Different assets
The analysis shows, as have many other less comprehensive studies, striking divergences in wealth between countries.
Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and some countries in the Asia Pacific region, such as Japan and Australia.


These countries account for 90% of household wealth.
The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.
And it uncovers some striking differences in the types of assets that dominate in different countries.
In less developed nations, land and farm assets are more important, reflecting the greater importance of agriculture in those economies.
In addition, the report says the weighting is the result of "immature" financial institutions, which make it much harder for people to have savings accounts or shares.
In contrast, some citizens of the rich countries have more debt than assets - making them, the report says, among the poorest in the world in terms of household wealth.
However, they are presumably better off in terms of what they consume than many people in developing countries.

Comprehensive
The survey is based on data for the year 2000. The authors say a more recent year would have involved more gaps in the data. As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.


Nonetheless, the authors say it is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.
Why does it matter? Because wealth serves as insurance against times when income tends to fall, such as unemployment, sickness or old age.
It is also a source of finance for small businesses, a particularly important point since it is the countries with lower levels of personal wealth which also tend to have weaker financial systems without the funds, ability or inclination to lend to small firms.
The report is not about policy recommendations.
But one of the authors, Professor Anthony Shorrocks, says it does draw attention to the importance of enhancing banking systems in developing countries to help generate the funds for business investment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

[ZeroZ]

its always been that way and probably always will be that way, thats why poor people, like me, dislike rich people, like everyone else in my town.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Ah, but can money really buy happiness ;)

[Smersh]

for people who want to do more reading, here is a link to the full study:

http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-report-5-12-2006.pdf



The Gini value, which measures inequality on a scale from zero to one, gives numbers in the range from 35% to 45% for income inequality in most countries. In contrast, Gini values for wealth inequality are usually between 65% and 75%, and sometimes exceed 80%.
Two high wealth economies, Japan and the United States, show very different patterns of wealth inequality, with Japan having a wealth Gini of 55% and the USA a wealth Gini of around 80%.
Wealth inequality for the world as a whole is higher still. The study estimates that the global wealth Gini for adults is 89%. The same degree of inequality would be obtained if one person in a group of ten takes 99% of the total pie and the other nine share the remaining 1%. The US gini index of 80% would mean one person in a group of ten takes 90-95% of the total pie, leaving the other nine to share the remaining 10 to 5%.


The research shows that the global distribution of income is very unequal and the inequality has not been falling over time. In some regions poverty and income inequality have become much worse.

[ZeroZ]

Ah, but can money really buy happiness ;)
yes, yes it can

[EsoognomEhT]

More Equal than others; good book on this situation in America for anyone interested

[Smersh]

here is another interesting quote: I'm pulling these directly from the report.


The global wealth Gini is higher still at 0.892 [for 2000]...By way of comparison Milanovic (2005, p. 108) estimates the Gini for the world distribution of income in 1998 at 0.795 using official exchange rates.

thats a 10% growth in inequality in 2 years!

[Bia]

The system is exactly how I like it...

it enables me to get a Taco for .69 cents and to have nice things simply for going to work.

;)


Corperations rule!

literally and figuratively
heh heh

[Superking]

its always been that way and probably always will be that way, thats why poor people, like me, dislike rich people, like everyone else in my town.

What are you 12? Do you live in Johannesburg? These "richers" probably have a better chance of getting you a job then the bum in the dumpster.

Edit: If they are all named J.Lo, Eminem or Paris Hilton...i´m with ya´!!

[MG 3]

It is a fact of modern economics that can not be changed, but someone with such recources should have some responcibilities towards others.

[rb132]

yes, yes it can


i was watching a video from nirvana's unplugged in new york

cobain was a decent looking guy, got to write music for a living, had millions of dollars and no doubt a following of teenage girls who creamed their little knickers everytime they heard his name mentioned and look what happened to him


it seems theres a bit more to happiness than just money


the two richest men are giving most of their's away now

[getl0st]

I read somewhere, that even if they evenly distribute all of the weath to everyone, within something like 15 years the 2% would own all the wealth again..

[Roaming East]

98% of the world po needs to start pulling its weight it seems...

[Niels]

It is a fact of modern economics that can not be changed, but someone with such recources should have some responcibilities towards others.Why do they? I don't understand this political correct/communistic obligation to give/share when you reach a certain level of richness. How do you think rich people get rich? By stealing it from poor people? Bill Gates for example, the richest man in world thanks to a crappy programme, that's what I call a clever businessman. They earned their money themself, so it's theirs. Simple as that.

[Flamming_Python]

I'm waiting for the first person to pop up here and accuse everyone of communism :)

Seriously though, this has been well known.

I can only imagine what kind of a powerhouse America would be in living standards if the wealth was distributed more evenly.

[Superking]

How much of this money is invested in companys and stocks? And would the public do the same with the hypothetical "shared" wealth?.....or would they buy dune buggys and dope?

[Flamming_Python]

How much of this money is invested in companys and stocks? And would the public do the same with the hypothetical "shared" wealth?.....or would they buy dune buggys and dope?

Well one of the points is that America owns a hell of a lot of foreign wealth, which enables it to better keep its position in the world.

[Thor]

God help those who help themselves

[Superking]

Well one of the points is that America owns a hell of a lot of foreign wealth, which enables it to better keep its position in the world.

Might be a good thing....i bet even Osama B Laden would think hard before trying to daisychain nukes across America.....he just might get more than he bargained for.

[Superking]

God help those who help themselves

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6626/9637291b5f41dc663m4qz.jpg

[Flamming_Python]

Might be a good thing....i bet even Osama B Laden would think hard before trying to daisychain nukes across America.....he just might get more than he bargained for.

I see your point.

But remember that this is part of the reason why America has such an involved foreign policy. No doubt attacking it would crash the world economy, but the foriegn ownership does give a disproportional amount of power to the American leaders and rich.

I would like to see American enterprises re-investing more of that money into poorer countries. At least then they could give something back, even if it isn't the ideal situation.

[XShipRider]

Ah, my financial plan is working. Only 97 more percentage points to go
and I'm in baby!

[annihilation]

Why do they? I don't understand this political correct/communistic obligation to give/share when you reach a certain level of richness. How do you think rich people get rich? By stealing it from poor people? Bill Gates for example, the richest man in world thanks to a crappy programme, that's what I call a clever businessman. They earned their money themself, so it's theirs. Simple as that.

Not everyone earned it. Alot of rich people have old money, passed on to them from one generation after another with a building full of accountants who make sure a dime never goes to the federal government in taxes or anything else. The only obligations I see the rich need to do is pay there fair share of taxes like the rest of us. They sure do use the protections afforded to them by their host country.

[Superking]

Not everyone earned it. Alot of rich people have old money, passed on to them from one generation after another with a building full of accountants who make sure a dime never goes to the federal government in taxes or anything else. The only obligations I see the rich need to do is pay there fair share of taxes like the rest of us. They sure do use the protections afforded to them by their host country.

You would love Sweden....here we tax the rich to the point that they leave the country.

[Niels]

Not everyone earned it. Alot of rich people have old money, passed on to them from one generation after another with a building full of accountants who make sure a dime never goes to the federal government in taxes or anything else. The only obligations I see the rich need to do is pay there fair share of taxes like the rest of us. They sure do use the protections afforded to them by their host country.
That means it's still theirs. Yes, they should pay the same taxes as the rest of us. The higher the taxes percentage the more money you have, is ridiculous though. A wealthy person often uses less public services and facilities, than someone who's poor and profiting of the welfare state.

[annihilation]

I never said that they should be taxed higher I said they should pay there fair share. Fair share doesn't mean higher. What it means is not hiding your capital gains in some foreign shell front company so you don't disclose it to the federal government. Using less or more of one public services is not the point, if you live in your home / host country you have services there that you use or don't but they are available.

I just don't believe is loopholes in the tax system, it should be more streamlined and straight forward.

[dangerclose]

I'm waiting for the first person to pop up here and accuse everyone of communism :)

Seriously though, this has been well known.

I can only imagine what kind of a powerhouse America would be in living standards if the wealth was distributed more evenly.

America's poor typically have cable television, at least one car and an obesity problem. Many of the world's poor would love to have the same living standards as ours do. Communism .... errr.... economic justice through wealth redistribution has been tried and is very effective at making everyone equally miserable. America has been and continues to be an economic powerhouse because the hard working and ambitious are rewarded for their efforts.

Why don't you have people braving shark infested waters to get to Cuba that socialist paradise?

[dangerclose]

its always been that way and probably always will be that way, thats why poor people, like me, dislike rich people, like everyone else in my town.



Envy. How does someone else's success make your life any worse?


And how many poor people have given you a job?

[Flamming_Python]

America's poor typically have cable television, at least one car and an obesity problem. Many of the world's poor would love to have the same living standards as ours do. Communism .... errr.... economic justice through wealth redistribution has been tried and is very effective at making everyone equally miserable. America has been and continues to be an economic powerhouse because the hard working and ambitious are rewarded for their efforts.

Why don't you have people braving shark infested waters to get to Cuba that socialist paradise?

Cuba has always had jack all. What wealth is there to re-distribute?

[dangerclose]

Cuba has always had jack all. What wealth is there to re-distribute?


* In the 1950s Cuba had a large middle class: about a third of the population. Twenty-three per cent of the working class was classified as skilled.

* The middle class was NOT flanked by powerful landowners or by an upper class. And there was much social mobility.

* Cuba had the third-highest per capita income in Latin America, exceeded only by Argentina and Venezuela-between $350 and $550 a year, probably nearer the higher figure.

*According to a U.S. Department of Commerce analysis (1956), Cuba was "the most heavily capitalized country in Latin America" and its "network of railways and highways blanket the country." The country also had numerous well- equipped ports.

*Per capita consumption of meat was about 65 lbs to 70 lbs a year; of sugar 50 kilos, exceeded only by England, Australia and Denmark, and higher than that of the U.S.

* Life expectancy was 58.8 years, while the average for South America was 56 years.

* Death rate was 6.4 per 1,000 persons and infant mortality 37.6 per 1,000. These figures were among the most favorable in Latin America. As in Argentina and Chile, two of the top three causes of death were decidedly "modern": cardiovascular diseases and malignant tumors. Citizens of most other Latin American nations succumbed to diseases of poverty such as digestive-system complications, infancy-related illnesses and respiratory disorders.

"Cuba is one of the countries [of Latin America] where the standard of living of the masses was particularly high."

Anibal Escalante, leader of the Cuban Communist Party until 1962

* During the 1950's, Cuban literacy rates were the fourth-highest in Latin America after Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica.

* Cuba had more telephones per capita than any Latin American country except Argentina and Uruguay; more TV sets per capita than any other Latin American country, and more than Italy; more cars per capita than any Latin American country except Venezuela.

Cuba: The Unecessary Revolution
by ADOLFO RIVERO CARO



Viva La Revolución

[Turhapuro]

Envy. How does someone else's success make your life any worse?
Actually it does because human mind is what it is. :(

(i have no policy proposals about this matter)

[cosimo]

The wealthiest folks pay the most taxes so the rest of the country benefits. I am sure I read somewhere that most money given to charity comes from the super rich too. I think I also read that US citizens are the most charitable on the planet. Inequality is healthy and natural and we should not worry about it at all.

[Durandal]

I'm waiting for the first person to pop up here and accuse everyone of communism :)

Seriously though, this has been well known.

I can only imagine what kind of a powerhouse America would be in living standards if the wealth was distributed more evenly.

It would be a dump.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I'm waiting for the first person to pop up here and accuse everyone of communism :)
Actually, communism is/was a capitalist plot to overcome the vast natural resources of the Soviet Union :) Surely nobody actually believes the Soviets managed their financial affairs that badly on accident.



I can only imagine what kind of a powerhouse America would be in living standards if the wealth was distributed more evenly.

Nobody would be motivated to do anything if they knew is was going to be taken away and redistributed.

[Jobu]

All this does is motivate me to reach that top 2% someday. Being a billionnaire would be pretty badass.

[Mastermind]

Yeah...and my spind-thrift wife thinks we are in that 2% already!!!MM

[Smersh]

All this does is motivate me to reach that top 2% someday. Being a billionnaire would be pretty badass.


good luck jobu.

most likely me and you and everyone else here will be the 90% guys sharing that 1% of the pie.:)

[Smersh]

Nobody would be motivated to do anything if they knew is was going to be taken away and redistributed.

have you worked before man? do you keep what ever you produce, or those your company take it away and redistribute it for profit. guy working in a lumber yard, cutting wood into lumber doesn't keep the wood. the dock worker doesn't keep the products he sorts and packages. unless Lt. Col you grow your own pumpkins or something. :)

people are motivated to do things if it, one makes them happy, and they get paid and a lot of other reasons.

[Smersh]

It would be a dump.

countries which carry out more even distrubution ,like in scandinvia, consistently rate as 'best place to live'. Norway, ireland, sweden, finland, iceland, etc.

[Jobu]

Not rated by me.

I want a bigger slice of the pie because I worked for it in the classroom and in the market.

If some lazy POS wants to sit home and play video games all day, I don't want to be forced to pay his way through life.

Socialism is for lazy people with no ambition.

-My two cents.

[Smersh]

I love your catch phrases.

yup, people are poor because their lazy? looks like you pracitce neo-social darwinism jobu, rich are rich because their better, poor are poor because their lazy and stupid.

so that top 1-10% controls 40-80% percent of income and wealth because their so much more hard working. the other 90% are lazy and don't want to work. It goes against every modern study of soceity but okay, jobu is credited socialogist, he even creates his own ratings.

[Jobu]

Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world because he created a product that everyone uses.

Mr. poor guy on welfare at home did not, despite having access to free education like any other American. He chose not to enjoy the opportunity this country gave him to live up to his potential as so many others have.

Who deserves more wealth? Clearly, Gates does. How much more does he deserve? As much as people will afford to him by buying his products. If that means he's in the top 1% of earners, I have no problem with that.

[Smersh]

and the Walmart kids?

[Jobu]

and the Walmart kids?

I assume you mean the Waltons.

Their family created one of the most successful businesses in the world. They deserve to reap the rewards. They earned it. They are also some of the most generous people on earth donating billions to education and charities.

If I can end up making billions, I'd be very proud if my children used the wealth for good purposes of their choosing when I'm gone.

[Smersh]

ah, they deserve and earned the wealth just for being born. but charity will only make people lazy right, suddenly 're-distrubution' is a 'good purpose'?

and many economists consider walmart has had a negative impact on america, becuase it pushes for outsourcing.

[Jobu]

ah, they deserve and earned the wealth just for being born. but charity will only make people lazy right, suddenly 're-distrubution' is a 'good purpose'?

and many economists consider walmart has had a negative impact on america, becuase it pushes for outsourcing.


It was a family business. So yes, they deserve the wealth for being born into a family which created such a success.

Charity is not re-distribution, it's one person choosing of his own free will to help another. Re-distribution is forced.

Outsourcing is good in my opinion. It promotes greater efficiency and competition.

[Smersh]

I don't think you understand the concept of re-distribution. Charity is re-distribution. There is nothing about forced and un-forced in the word.

alright then. If you believe only ,being born, means you've earned billions in the case of the wantons, thats your opinion. But I thought you where the one talking about people should work hard for their money and success and be innovative etc.

[charliepage]

Unfortunately poor people are mis-understood, seemingly very much here. I am considering myself low-middle but still understand the many difficulties.

I could give a million examples but for example after my parents divorce, my mom hadn't worked since she was pregnant (19-20 years ago) so all the places she worked at are out of business, so no experience. After almost 2 months she got lucky and got a job at Gold Star (fast food), however she does make $7.15/hour but at the moment couldn't live on her own even at an average apartment.

Although it sounds great and nice the whole "free education" thing is there, great, but not all can take advantage of it. What about transportation? If the person is like myself and mother, no car so either walking or by bus which requires a photo ID, getting downtown to get a bus pass (ironic) and then you are set.

Don't get me wrong, there are MANY poor and low-middle income families and people that don't try there best but to generalize and say things such as well Bill Gates worked so he deserves it and the low income people don't, is wrong. 2 people can work just as hard but one getting VERY lucky and breaks and another ending up at Burger King. I could write about 4 more paragraphs but I'll stop. :p

[Smersh]

good post, charlie.

you made some really improtant points.

But its interesting to me that americans seem to always think of themeselves as 'middle class' usually no matter the income. and never working class.

[dangerclose]

good post, charlie.

you made some really improtant points.

But its interesting to me that americans seem to always think of themeselves as 'middle class' usually no matter the income. and never working class.


Because we're not a bunch of .... communists?

[Smersh]

just using a different word makes it totally different

"Connotations attached to the term also vary significantly between and within different countries. In the United States of America usage is increasingly broad in scope, but almost always positive in intent . In the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth nations, the term can sometimes be prejorative, implying a privileged bourgeosi person often affecting upper class mannerisms or attitudes, in contrast to a hard-working and unpretentious working person."

[kosse]

Because we're not a bunch of .... communists?
Or you are not just smart enough to take what belongs to you. Or you like being abused. Anyway, word's richest country and some people get paid so badly that they can barely feed themselves. Go on working on ridiculously small minimum wages. I don't give a sh1t :)

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

have you worked before man? do you keep what ever you produce, or those your company take it away and redistribute it for profit. guy working in a lumber yard, cutting wood into lumber doesn't keep the wood. the dock worker doesn't keep the products he sorts and packages. unless Lt. Col you grow your own pumpkins or something. :)

people are motivated to do things if it, one makes them happy, and they get paid and a lot of other reasons.

Actually, yes I do, smart guy.

The point I was trying to make, oh clever one, is that the same amount of wealth wouldn't be created if people believed that it was going to be redistributed.

[Smersh]

It doesn't matter if a gaint amount of wealth is created or not if 90 percent of people see no benefit!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

It doesn't matter if a gaint amount of wealth is created or not if 90 percent of people see no benefit!

I think you're misunderstanding me. All of my posts express something similar to what you've just said.
I was arguing against wealth redistribution.

Wealth won't be created in as great a quantities by those who believe large amounts will be redistributed by the government.

[dangerclose]

Or you are not just smart enough to take what belongs to you. Or you like being abused. Anyway, word's richest country and some people get paid so badly that they can barely feed themselves. Go on working on ridiculously small minimum wages. I don't give a sh1t :)


Someone else's hard earned wealth and/or inheritance belongs to me? And we can barely feed ourselves? We have the fattest poor people on earth.

Robert Mugabe and the poor masses of Zimbabwe also took what "belonged to them." What was once the breadbasket of Africa is now an economic basketcase and they can no longer even feed themselves.


Instead of eyeing what your neighbor has with a murderous envy, be happy with what you have or work hard for what you want.

[Macs.]

The biggest supporters of communism/socialism always live in the capitalistic west.

Its hilarious.

[annihilation]

It was a family business. So yes, they deserve the wealth for being born into a family which created such a success.

Charity is not re-distribution, it's one person choosing of his own free will to help another. Re-distribution is forced.

Outsourcing is good in my opinion. It promotes greater efficiency and competition.

Outsourcing can also be considered exploitation too. We out source jobs freely in the global economy but we neglect to outsource worker rights, better working conditions, and enviromental laws.

We add a new long term burden for a short term gain.

[kosse]

Someone else's hard earned wealth and/or inheritance belongs to me? And we can barely feed ourselves? We have the fattest poor people on earth.

Robert Mugabe and the poor masses of Zimbabwe also took what "belonged to them." What was once the breadbasket of Africa is now an economic basketcase and they can no longer even feed themselves.


Instead of eyeing what your neighbor has with a murderous envy, be happy with what you have or work hard for what you want.
The fact is that there are people in your country that have to work their asses off and sometimes even two jobs to keep them from sinking. That's a disgrace for a richest country in the world. There's only one word to describe it: abuse.

And did I say anything about taking anyone's inheritance? Right, I didn't so keep you childish fantasies to yourself. People deserve to get a decent compensation for their work and it has nothing to do with robbing anyone.

I don't get it how anyone can love a country where the mentality is that abusing people in difficult positions is acceptable and even good.

[Smersh]

The biggest supporters of communism/socialism always live in the capitalistic west.

Its hilarious.

hilarious?think about what your saying

how exaclty would people outside the wealthy west, have a computer, access to the internet and speak, read, and write in english to post on these forums.

kosse I don't understand it either. Americans love to talk about human rights, why don't they go visit these sweat shops in foreign underdeveloped nations.

[dangerclose]

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8155/northkoreanighttimeshrulw1.jpg

[Smersh]

how is this related, has anyone here advocated adopting the N. Korean system?

how about this picture: all 3 where soviet republics

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/9743/gdpgc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Flamming_Python]

how is this related, has anyone here advocated adopting the N. Korean system?

how about this picture: all 3 where soviet republics

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/9743/gdpgc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Smersh let's not get into that. We already have a thread for this sort of thing, and you and I both know where it is.

Anyway, to be honest, it's no-one else's business how the Americans run their country. And if they don't want to spread their wealth out more across their population, so be it, it's their choice.

The main problem I can think off it's that they profit off other countries wealth due to their existing capital. That I would like to see much less of, but I can understand how in the current messed up world we live in today, it's just something that rich countries do.

[kosse]

how is this related, has anyone here advocated adopting the N. Korean system?


I guess everything that differs from pure capitalism is commie to some people.

[Smersh]

Smersh let's not get into that. We already have a thread for this sort of thing, and you and I both know where it is.

Anyway, to be honest, it's no-one else's business how the Americans run their country. And if they don't want to spread their wealth out more across their population, so be it, it's their choice.

The main problem I can think off it's that they profit off other countries wealth due to their existing capital. That I would like to see much less of, but I can understand how in the current messed up world we live in today, it's just something that rich countries do.

No, I DEFINETLY don't want another debate like that. I was just pointing out that I can post pretty pictures too.

and I agree with your last paragraph.


Wealth won't be created in as great a quantities by those who believe large amounts will be redistributed by the government.

Can you explain to me why its important to create large amounts of wealth, if its mostly or all appriopriated by the top 1 to 10%? Think about it outside economic terms, using the pie analogy, what is the point of having a huge pie, if 90% of people have to share a tiny peice of it. Wouldn't it make sense to have a smaller pie, but everyone gets a bigger peice?

[XShipRider]

Can you explain to me why its important to create large amounts of wealth, if its mostly or all appriopriated by the top 1 to 10%? Think about it outside economic terms, using the pie analogy, what is the point of having a huge pie, if 90% of people have to share a tiny peice of it. Wouldn't it make sense to have a smaller pie, but everyone gets a bigger peice?

No. Because if the pie is divided evenly there's no incentive to make a
bigger pie. It's those top 2% willing to put it all on the line to make that
pie ever bigger. The majority of people do not have the wherewithall
or the guts to gamble their hard earned money on making it bigger.

If we settle for a smaller pie with equal divisions you can pretty much
guarantee, as population grows, the pie will shrink. Initiative and
ingenuity stifled in the name of equality.

[Belrick]

"How come i don't own my fair share of the worlds wealth"?

"By the way i went and bought a large screen plasma TV, a DVD HD recorder, a trip overseas last year and a new family car for the wife that i cannot really afford.... But i digress, back to the real subject."

"How come i don't own my fair share of the worlds wealth"?

[Belrick]

All pettiness aside the vast majority of the people i know do not have a clue on how to hold onto wealth. They simply lack the financial knowledge and nounce to store wealth and help it grow.

Without stored wealth there is no means to invest and grow the worlds economy so instead of being pathetic and jealous of others success at pooling wealth one should instead be saying.

"If they can become rich, then so can I"

Having said that the best way to create a small fortune is to start with a large fortune :D But how many people borrow money to invest as opposed to those that borrow for instant gratification such as a family home, tv car holiday etc?

[Smersh]

Just some small points.


If we settle for a smaller pie with equal divisions you can pretty much guarantee, as population grows, the pie will shrink. Initiative and
ingenuity stifled in the name of equality. Do you have some evidence of this? In countries with more equal distribution growth has not stopped and initiative and ingenity have not been stifiled.


Having said that the best way to create a small fortune is to start with a large fortune :grin: But how many people borrow money to invest as opposed to those that borrow for instant gratification such as a family home, tv car holiday etc? wouldn't this cause a big drop in consumer demand? and stop economic growth?

[dangerclose]

Once again, communism/socialism is losers' way of getting back at the world. Just because you suck and are miserable doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.

During Mao's cultural revolution he forced the janitors to perform surgeon duties while the surgeons swept the floors. How'd you like to be the patient on that operating table?

[Smersh]

During Mao's cultural revolution he forced the janitors to perform surgeon duties while the surgeons swept the floors. How'd you like to be the patient on that operating table?

what does the lunacy of Mao have anything to do with wealth inequality. No one here is saying we get everyone to pretend to be someone else, and role reversal. That has nothing to do with socialism.

[dangerclose]

what does the lunacy of Mao have anything to do with wealth inequality. No one here is saying we get everyone to pretend to be someone else, and role reversal.


The logical conclusion of equal outcome over equal opportunity.

[Smersh]

so you beleive equal opportunity exists then? who is talking about equal outcome, you jump to very wild conclusions.

[dangerclose]

so you beleive equal opportunity exists then?


Yes, at least in the U.S.

[Lord Impaler]

Just some small points.

Do you have some evidence of this? In countries with more equal distribution growth has not stopped and initiative and ingenity have not been stifiled.

I've read that one of your listed countries--Sweden--hasn't had any net job growth since the 1950s. In fact, Sweden's government and a major trade union have been accused of suppressing the true numbers in this area.

[name already taken]

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8155/northkoreanighttimeshrulw1.jpg
Aren't these the American military bases we see shining here ?

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Can you explain to me why its important to create large amounts of wealth, if its mostly or all appriopriated by the top 1 to 10%?
I believe those at the top of the economic spectrum are strongly motivated to acquire / create wealth because they are doing it for themselves. Tell them that the government is going to take a large (or larger) percentage of that wealth, and their motivation to achieve is reduced.

I'm not necessarily defending the idea of amassing great wealth.



Think about it outside economic terms, using the pie analogy, what is the point of having a huge pie, if 90% of people have to share a tiny peice of it. Wouldn't it make sense to have a smaller pie, but everyone gets a bigger peice?I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across. I'm not debating that wealth distribution in the US is disproportionate.

[Thor]

ah, they deserve and earned the wealth just for being born. but charity will only make people lazy right, suddenly 're-distrubution' is a 'good purpose'?
They deserve it because they who they inherited it from were free to do whatever they wanted with what was theirs.

On the other hand there are economists and people like Bill Gates that say that the only tax they are for is the inheritance tax. Every generation should have to fight their own battles.


and many economists consider walmart has had a negative impact on america, becuase it pushes for outsourcing.
Outsourcing is great and a natural part of global trade.



yup, people are poor because their lazy? looks like you pracitce neo-social darwinism jobu, rich are rich because their better, poor are poor because their lazy and stupid.

Compare Africa with Asia, or compare Russia with Japan, Taiwan etc.


have you worked before man? do you keep what ever you produce, or those your company take it away and redistribute it for profit.
guy working in a lumber yard, cutting wood into lumber doesn't keep the wood. the dock worker doesn't keep the products he sorts and packages.
That guy gets to keep what's the market wage for his labour. There's no more value to anything than what someone is prepared to pay for it. In return he can buy stocks in that lumber yard company or open his own business to see if he can do a better job in adding value to lumber.


so you beleive equal opportunity exists then?
Who says it doesn't? World is a meritocracy, and it has been that way since the first living creature set off to explore the world.

[name already taken]

Concentrating power in a smaller and smaller number of hands makes the economy and the world more unstable.

You may use "$$$" and "power" interchangeably in this sentence.

And when the ultra rich choose to pay millions for a modern painting showing a big black dot they're not creating any wealth.

When people don't have anything to do for their survival, they tend to use their resources to create a fantasy world for themselves, such as the one in this example:

http://www.castlesoftheworld.org/castles/Europe/Central_Europe/Germany/MVC-780F_small.jpg

Neuschwanstein Castle, is one of the many romantic castles built by Louis II of Bavaria who was forced to abdicate because he was bankrupting his kingdom building castles.

This was happening during the industrial revolution between 1869 and 1890.

This casle was later taken as model for the castle in Disneyland.

http://www.castles.org/castles/Europe/Central_Europe/Germany/germany7.htm

That is one example of what can happen when wealth is not well distributed.

[Mr.K]

Yes, at least in the U.S.

Why aren't you a millionaire?


And when the ultra rich choose to pay millions for a modern painting showing a big black dot they're not creating any wealth.
No, thats how they launder money ;)

[name already taken]

No, thats how they launder money ;)
Exactly. And there's a lot of stuff that can be created that are of no value except showing that the holder belongs to so and so social class.

[Thor]

Exactly. And there's a lot of stuff that can be created that are of no value except showing that the holder belongs to so and so social class.
The value that's in a painting only exists because someone is prepared to pay a certain amount of money for it. Saying that a piece of art has no value just shows a lack of understanding.

[Mr.K]

Exactly. And there's a lot of stuff that can be created that are of no value except showing that the holder belongs to so and so social class.

Thats how companies that produce luxury items stay in business.

So I'm still waiting for an answer from the socialist-bashers? Why aren't you rich? and why aren't you like Bill Gates since you have that opportunity.

[Jobu]

Thats how companies that produce luxury items stay in business.

So I'm still waiting for an answer from the socialist-bashers? Why aren't you rich? and why aren't you like Bill Gates since you have that opportunity.

I'm working on it and succeeding so far. Thanks for your concern.

[Mr.K]

I'm working on it and succeeding so far. Thanks for your concern.
No problem. Don't forget to thank all the poor and uneducated people , who will buy your miracle product:)

[name already taken]

The value that's in a painting only exists because someone is prepared to pay a certain amount of money for it. Saying that a piece of art has no value just shows a lack of understanding.
The said piece of art disappearing forever in a private collection doesn't need to have a value. Just a price in this case. And a bill proving it.

[Thor]

The said piece of art disappearing forever in a private collection doesn't need to have a value. Just a price in this case. And a bill proving it.
A monetary value is always a value than can be transformed into whatever piece of property or service that you wish for.

[name already taken]

A monetary value is always a value than can be transformed into whatever piece of property or service that you wish for.
The problem comes when those who can wish for it come in smaller and smaller numbers, large amounts of wealth can be lost if there's a loss of interest.

And when you factor in the fact that the wealth is created with the work of large numbers of uneducated poor workers, loss of wealth is a tragedy for them.

You have to remember that when a small number of people are ultra rich, most of the population is not.

And you have to further understand that rich people, most of the time, will use most of their power to create more power for themselves. That's how most rich people use their power.

Does this have beneficial effects on the general population ? Sometimes.

[Thor]

I've read that one of your listed countries--Sweden--hasn't had any net job growth since the 1950s. In fact, Sweden's government and a major trade union have been accused of suppressing the true numbers in this area.
Net growth in traditional industry jobs that is. On the other hand the high cost of labour has pushed hard on automation and cost-awareness, which means that although the industry is producing much more value fewer workers are needed. This also leaves us in a great position to face global competition.

So it's a double-sided sword.

The ones who are taking the hardest blows are the small industry companies that are experiencing a threshold-effect in costs when it comes to expanding their workforces.

[Kilgor]

Thats how companies that produce luxury items stay in business.

So I'm still waiting for an answer from the socialist-bashers? Why aren't you rich? and why aren't you like Bill Gates since you have that opportunity.

Who says I have to be rich.

The fact is, even on my modest wage I live far more comfortably than people in your so called "Marxist" based economic and political states. I have the liberty to speak my mind, read and watch what I want, see who I want and travel where I want and most of all...vote and hold leaders accountable.

This is far more than your precious communist ideology ever gave or will give.

[Mr.K]

The problem comes when those who can wish for it come in smaller and smaller numbers, large amounts of wealth can be lost if there's a loss of interest.
Money is practically worthless these days, it's not even in a paper form, but numbers on a screen. The wealth is very artificial, that's why anyone who tries to change or question the system is considered a major threat.



And when you factor in the fact that the wealth is created with the work of large numbers of uneducated poor workers, loss of wealth is a tragedy for them.
No, you will be told that its the genius on top that created the wealth why? Because he keeps the profits.


You have to remember that when a small number of people are ultra rich, most of the population is not.
He knows, but you will be told it's because they went to school, studied real hard and deserved it.p-) Never mind the capital put in for the education and daily cost of life.

And you have to further understand that rich people, most of the time, will use most of their power to create more power for themselves. That's how most rich people use ther power.


Does this have beneficial effects on the general population ? Sometimes.
It's a secondary effect, companies expand in order to make more money not to provide more people with jobs.
Same thing with people, for example med students that want to become doctors because of the salary and not because they want to help sick people. Or who on earn would want to become a CA if it wasn't for the money.

[Kilgor]

what does the lunacy of Mao have anything to do with wealth inequality. No one here is saying we get everyone to pretend to be someone else, and role reversal. That has nothing to do with socialism.

Because you advocate a system which time and again has produced people like Mao, Stalin, Kim and son, pol pot.

[Thor]

The problem comes when those who can wish for it come in smaller and smaller numbers
Which isn't true. Wherever there is economic progress people in general are getting better and better off.


And when you factor in the fact that the wealth is created with the work of large numbers of uneducated poor workers, loss of wealth is a tragedy for them.
They're not losing anything from working in a job corresponding to their level of skills and abilities.


You have to remember that when a small number of people are ultra rich, most of the population is not.
On the contrary, in all prosperous societies there are huge income gaps.


And you have to further understand that rich people, most of the time, will use most of their power to create more power for themselves. That's how most rich people use their power.
I can agree that power, or more precisely political power, should be separated from business. If not it will turn into corruption.

[Smersh]

I'm not necessarily defending the idea of amassing great wealth.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across. I'm not debating that wealth distribution in the US is disproportionate. we do seem to be misunderstand eachother here. You do realize that you are defending the idea of amassing a great wealth (in fewer and fewer hands), this is what the study shows. and then you do accept that wealth and income distribution is the USA compared to many other developed nations is very disproportionate. Is that right?




Does this have beneficial effects on the general population ? Sometimes.
I've said this before, it does have some beneficial effects on the general population, their may be some positive growth in working people conditions, especially during the positive time of the business cyclye. But relative to the the position of the top 1-10%, their position has worsened i.e decreasing share of the working class in the national income.

[Mr.K]

Who says I have to be rich.

The fact is, even on my modest wage I live far more comfortably than people in your so called "Marxist" based economic and political states.
I've always lived comfortably be it the "marxist" or the "free world".


I have the liberty to speak my mind, read and watch what I want
Speak all you want,but no one is listening.


see who I want
No, you see who you can.

and travel where I want
No, you travel to where you can afford.


and most of all...vote and hold leaders accountable.
This is far more than your precious communist ideology ever gave or will give.
Accountable for what?
Yes you're right on the last one, thank God for another day of freedom.

[Mr.K]

I've said this before, it does have some beneficial effects on the general population, their may be some positive growth in working people conditions, especially during the positive time of the business cyclye. But relative to the the position of the top 1-10%, their position has worsened i.e decreasing share of the working class in the national income.
Because we became an economy of services. So why give more to a worker here, while the asian worker is more cost-effective.

[Smersh]

Because you advocate a system which time and again has produced people like Mao, Stalin, Kim and son, pol pot.

Kilgor you bring this point up constantly even thought its always discredited. First of all capitalist nations have produced bad leaders, and dictators as well. lets not get into another, human rights contest, alright. I don't want another long dicussion about this, we already have a thread for that.



and most of all...vote and hold leaders accountable.
This is far more than your precious communist ideology ever gave or will give.

The lack of political accontability in socialist countries you bring up, is a feature of those countries, and has nothing to do with socialism, I mean its not inherent in socialism. In the 1960s Krushchev before he was ousted for other reasons, namely foreign policy losses, was proposing things like accontability for politicians, and limiting terms of office.

Not to mention Kilgor, that capitalism works perfectly well under tyrannical regimes (chile-china)

[name already taken]

Which isn't true. Wherever there is economic progress people in general are getting better and better off.


They're not losing anything from working in a job corresponding to their level of skills and abilities.


On the contrary, in all prosperous societies there are huge income gaps.


I can agree that power, or more precisely political power, should be separated from business. If not it will turn into corruption.
Could you take a look in post #79 and tell me if it makes sense ?

[Thor]

I've always lived comfortably be it the "marxist" or the "free world".
As long as you settle for less you will remain in your current situation - grasping for socialist ideas.


No, you travel to where you can afford.
Which would be practically anywhere for most people in the west with an income.


First of all capitalist nations have produced bad leaders
With the difference that they are put in office, and voted out of it, by the will of the people. All while respecting civil liberties and without killing 100+ million people.


I mean its not inherent in socialism.
Empirical research obviously shows otherwise.

[Smersh]

With the difference that they are put in office, and voted out of it, by the will of the people. All while respecting civil liberties and without killing 100+ million people. Your talking about leaders in recent time, in liberal democratic states. what about people like pinochet, or colonialists. I don't want another casutaly comparison, again ! but british businnes practices in indai just before the 20th century, killed 60million people in india alone through famine.

hah, I just heard a news report that people in south korea are increasingly saying their working class instead of middle class (50%) and their skeptical about their progress in the future, on that new france24 channel.;)


Which would be practically anywhere for most people in the west with an income. hard for households to do much traveling abroad making 40,000 dollars or less, and I don't think american vacation time for instance will allow for a very long trip.

[Thor]

Could you take a look in post #79 and tell me if it makes sense ?
The feudal societies weren't exactly very fair (although it differed a lot from state to state). Nevertheless, it was the pathway out of the dark ages with great economic, cultural and social progress that overwhelmingly established Europe as the leading region.

[Smersh]

The feudal societies weren't exactly very fair (although it differed a lot from state to state). Nevertheless, it was the pathway out of the dark ages with great economic, cultural and social progress that overwhelmingly established Europe as the leading region.

you have your history wrong, Europe established itself as the leading region, after it began to colonize other parts of the world. In terms of 'cultural and social progress' during this time countries in asia where ahead, places like china, japan, and india.

Europe and other wealthy developed nations maintain their leading position today in a very similar way, not through physical colonisation, but through capital export. they make huge profits in developing nations, because of their cheap labor, etc. The character of the global economy does not favor these nations establishing decent wages, and labor laws, etc.

[Mr.K]

As long as you settle for less you will remain in your current situation - grasping for socialist ideas.
My current situation is being a university student with an income that even allows me to save a little. That's not to awful isn't it.
You tell me about settling for less. I settle for what is possible, no daydreaming about being a millionaire while ferociously defending liberalism because i'm a wanna be rich ( no it's not directed to you, just sayin')



Which would be practically anywhere for most people in the west with an income.
So, you've been around the world yet? I'm sure your boss is fine with it.
I know plenty of students that traveled, and are now stuck with a debt, something that i find unacceptable.


With the difference that they are put in office, and voted out of it, by the will of the people. All while respecting civil liberties and without killing 100+ million people.
Can i say "colonization"? (Smersh beat me to it ;)) Were the western powers invited to whatever country they colonized? Did they leave as soon as they were asked and peacefully?

[Smersh]

My current situation is being a university student with an income that even allows me to save a little. That's not to awful isn't it.
You tell me about settling for less. I settle for what is possible, no daydreaming about being a millionaire while ferociously defending liberalism because i'm a wanna be rich ( no it's not directed to you, just sayin') good post, perfectly said.

[Thor]

you have your history wrong, Europe established itself as the leading region, after it began to colonize other parts of the world.
No, colonialism was one of many consequences of previous eras.


Europe and other wealthy developed nations maintain their leading position today in a very similar way, not through physical colonisation, but through capital export. they make huge profits in developing nations, because of their cheap labor, etc. The character of the global economy does not favor these nations establishing decent wages, and labor laws, etc.
Every prosperous nation has been in the position that the countries of early stages of industrialisation are in today. They are profiting from the fact that they have competitive wages. In a few decades they will have to start to compete in other areas and the low-cost manufacturing industry will again move to some other undeveloped country/region.


So, you've been around the world yet? I'm sure your boss is fine with it.
Not been to South America and Africa yet.


Can i say "colonization"? (Smersh beat me to it ;)) Were the western powers invited to whatever country they colonized? Did they leave as soon as they were asked and peacefully?
That was during the colonial era. It's an interesting moral discussion though.


My current situation is being a university student with an income that even allows me to save a little. That's not to awful isn't it.
You tell me about settling for less. I settle for what is possible, no daydreaming about being a millionaire while ferociously defending liberalism because i'm a wanna be rich ( no it's not directed to you, just sayin')
The way you bitched it sounded like you were settling for a few loafs of bread and a bottle of vodka.

I can't complain either, life's good. I live in a great country/region, got some basic f*ck you savings, many opportunities etc. Filthy rich would be ok with me, but that's not really the goal. I would just like to start up a business, don't care in what field, but I like the idea of being my own boss some day.

[Smersh]

No, colonialism was one of many consequences of previous eras. Colonailism was a direct result development of capitalism.(a frenzied search for foreign markets, and raw materials, and cheap 'slave' labor). Europe under Feudalism was called "the dark ages" it was not the time where Europe was leading in the world.


Every prosperous nation has been in the position that the countries of early stages of industrialisation are in today. They are profiting from the fact that they have competitive wages. In a few decades they will have to start to compete in other areas and the low-cost manufacturing industry will again move to some other undeveloped country/region.

who is profiting? you don't understand the nature of the global economy. It does not promote development. Firstly, I have said this many times, if a country established higher wages, and decent labor laws, that are considered standard in wealthy nations, capital will insisently leave the country and cause economic collapse. global poverty, inequality, starvation, disease is all increasing, not getting better. Capital export is a tool of new-imperialism. Only a small amount of the capital created by these nations stays inside the country, most goes back to the home country. Since the industries in these 'developing' nations are owned by foreign capitalists.

this is why your comparison of the position of developing nations to the industrialzing wealthy nations does not work. There where no foreign capitalists who controlled British and American industries. The accumlated capital stayed inside Britain and the United States.

And the model you propose is not even sustainiable, what happens when at some future time, maybe 1000 years from now (which isn't actually possible)all nations become 'developed' then? where does cheap labor come from then. and people say socialism is a Utopia.

people in poor nations aren't going to wait a 1000 years for the fictional 'invisible hand' to get to work on them. And as the study pointed out, a smaller and smaller amount of people are apprioating a greater and greater percentage of wealth.

this is getting off topic. we leaving what the study directly talks about and getting into a complicated capitalism debate. I don't want to continue this further, its getting nowhere and it got nowhere in the other thread.

[Smersh]

Marx in Capital, says that under capitalism there is an inherent worsening of the position of the working people ( decreasing share of the working class in the national income). and that growth inevitably leads to increased inequality between wealthy capitalists and working people, a majority of the population. This study I think proves,this tendency Marx talked about still operates today.

Can we at least unbaisedly agree that this is what the study seems to show?

honestly lets drop this endless capitalism vs. socialism debate.

[name already taken]

No, colonialism was one of many consequences of previous eras.
Colonialism was the consequence of poor distribution of wealth in industrializing countries.

The ultra rich of the time could not spend their wealth in their economies, their wealth being building too fast to be even spendable, so they had to spend it abroad.

This gave colonial adventures which were deemed as spreading the civilisation and ended up with 2 world wars when there wasn't any territory left to colonize for the last feodalities of Europe who became nations in the 1850's.

Furthermore, slavery pervading in most of those colonies is the saddest example of poor wealth redistribution anybody could think of.

[Durandal]

Unfortunately poor people are mis-understood, seemingly very much here. I am considering myself low-middle but still understand the many difficulties.

I could give a million examples but for example after my parents divorce, my mom hadn't worked since she was pregnant (19-20 years ago) so all the places she worked at are out of business, so no experience. After almost 2 months she got lucky and got a job at Gold Star (fast food), however she does make $7.15/hour but at the moment couldn't live on her own even at an average apartment.

Although it sounds great and nice the whole "free education" thing is there, great, but not all can take advantage of it. What about transportation? If the person is like myself and mother, no car so either walking or by bus which requires a photo ID, getting downtown to get a bus pass (ironic) and then you are set.

Don't get me wrong, there are MANY poor and low-middle income families and people that don't try there best but to generalize and say things such as well Bill Gates worked so he deserves it and the low income people don't, is wrong. 2 people can work just as hard but one getting VERY lucky and breaks and another ending up at Burger King. I could write about 4 more paragraphs but I'll stop. :p

The problem is, you live in Cincinnati, which has a crapful mass transit system and far too much uncontrolled urban sprawl so if you want to get from point A to point B you either A) not do it or B) it takes you hours to 15 miles cross town.

As to Walmart in this region (I live on the Eastside in the Madison Place area) there are tons of small businesses that are thriving, most ma and pop type places. Looking over the Enquirer's classified sections I see a LOT of ads for unskilled entry level jobs for far more than what your mom is making.

That's probably rude of me to point out, and I apologize if you take offense to that, but you made it sound if Gold Star is her ONLY choice. My friend had two kids in high school (twins), went to college, got a degree in English and wrote technical manuals. She busted her ass but she did it. Her company then went out of business and she started doing it freelance and made money at it.

[Noble713]

Colonailism was a direct result development of capitalism.(a frenzied search for foreign markets, and raw materials, and cheap 'slave' labor).

Colonialism is, if anything, a continuation of the previous economic model based on "external growth". In other words, prior to capitalism economies improved by acquiring more land, people, and resources. Slave labor is not a capitalist invention. As capitalism developed, all this has shifted to "intensive growth", i.e. taking the land/people/resources that you already have and increasing their productivity.

Do you know who the first capitalists were?



who is profiting? you don't understand the nature of the global economy. It does not promote development.

You should read Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf.



Firstly, I have said this many times, if a country established higher wages, and decent labor laws, that are considered standard in wealthy nations, capital will insisently leave the country and cause economic collapse.

Feel free to provide examples. If you are thinking of South America, their basket-case economies are due to extreme domestic protectionism and a failure to innovate.



global poverty, inequality, starvation, disease is all increasing, not getting better.

Global inequality is increasing, but global poverty is not. In the past 20-30 years the quality of life in India and China has continued to rise as their economies have opened up and developed, uplifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. It's something like more people than the entire population of sub-Saharan africa.




And the model you propose is not even sustainiable, what happens when at some future time, maybe 1000 years from now (which isn't actually possible)all nations become 'developed' then? where does cheap labor come from then.

Cheap labour is not mandatory for a globalized market economy to function. When the economy becomes completely open, eventually all wages in the world will stabilize at nearly the same level. Based on skill level, of course. I don't mean that doctors will get paid the same as janitors, just that a janitor in China will get paid the same as a janitor in Luxembourg.

I have to go but maybe later I'll post some quotes from Wolf...

[Smersh]

Colonialism is, if anything, a continuation of the previous economic model based on "external growth". In other words, prior to capitalism economies improved by acquiring more land, people, and resources. Slave labor is not a capitalist invention. As capitalism developed, all this has shifted to "intensive growth", i.e. taking the land/people/resources that you already have and increasing their productivity.

Do you know who the first capitalists were?

Are you kidding me. Your saying capitalist economics began after colonalism? and colonialism was not at all a development of capitalism?. This makes no sense, remember that direct pyhsical colonalism only ended maybe 50 to 30 years ago, after the national liberation movements of the last century. So capitalism is only half a century year old? Capitalism was clearly developed enought in England for Adam Smith to be talking about all the way back in the 18th century. Capitalism began after the end of Feudalism, when feudal relationships and modes of production ended, at different times for different countries. Feudalism in Russia for instance didn't end until 1860s, when serfdom was abolished.

here is a direct quote form the wikipedia article on capitalism, it fits with what I have said: "Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries...Capitalism has emerged as the Western world's dominant economic system since the decline of feudalism, which eroded traditional political and religious restraints on capitalist exchange."

It was colonialism over of a majority of the world populations, in Africa, China, and Latin America, which stunted their development in the first place.

Direct colonization doesn't exist anymore. But developing nations are still colonies in a different way, through diplomatic and finincial dependence. wealth western nations still dominate poor nations through capital investment, and other agreements. Using these methods, wealthy nations still dominate the economies and natural resources of poor nations.


Feel free to provide examples. If you are thinking of South America, their basket-case economies are due to extreme domestic protectionism and a failure to innovate. An example of when people demand decent wages, and decent labor laws, how this causes capital to leave the country? This is exactly what has happened in wealthy western nations. I would also point to places like Mexico and Jamiacia, where opening the economy has not helped the situation, and made them places only for cheap labor. the Mexican immigration problem in the United States is largely caused by this, the priviation and bankruptsy these polocies cause there.

I seriosly disagree, with the market development model proposed by todays neo-liberal economists. Firstly,when asked what method should be used to eleviate the huge and raising wealth inequality the study showed, one of the author said, development of banking systems. But the United States has a developed banking system, and this has not solved any wealth inequality problems. In fact people in places with developed banking systems, i.e easy loans, credit cards, have the some of the lowest amounts of wealth, since they have so much debt.

Second, during an interview with some policy leader at the WTO, he was asked has the opening of Veitnam, improved the lives of ordinary vietnamese. he responded with more consumer goods are available and that they have more access to trade. ( he never said, yes) As I've said before, it doesn't matter if 20 models of toasters are avialble to people, if they can't afford to buy bread, or nothing else.

I could go on for 100 posts about this, its a extremely broad topic. And like I have said twice, I don't want to get into another socialism vs. capitalism thread, their endless and go nowhere.We have to be able to at least agree on this point.As capitalism develops inequality increases and the share of working people in the national income drops? Is this not what the study shows? does it show something else?

[name already taken]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

Says here that In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003.

So, the average worker in 2004 had to work 431 years to get what the CEO got that year.

Land of opportunity.

[Jobu]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

Says here that In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003.

Moral of the story:

Start your own business or get your MBA.

[Smersh]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

Says here that In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003.

whatever the moral of the story is,

another example of increasing disparity.

[Mr.K]

Moral of the story:

Start your own business or get your MBA.

Out of all these businesses how many end up in bankruptcy.
I'm skeptical about the MBA, if everyone ends up with one, shouldn't be there less jobs for MBA graduates then. Perhaps you could explain me in PV, i'd truily appreciate that.

[Jobu]

Some businesses fail and some succeed but never trying is worse. As the SAS say...

[LRPV]

Well the original article came from an elightened, objective source...the UN. Whenever reading UN material its important to know which barrow the writers are pushing.

[askDNA]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

Says here that In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003.

So, the average worker in 2004 had to work 431 years to get what the CEO got that year.

Land of opportunity.

1) Do you know how many CEOs there are?
2) Do you know how hard those people had to work to get there?
3) Do you know how much they contribute to the companies they run?

[name already taken]

Moral of the story:

Start your own business or get your MBA.
Everybody should be a banker. That way, everybody would be rich.:)

I'm not preoccupied with their wealth as much as with the disparity they create voting themselves such insane revenues.

They have the media at their disposal to tell you how much they deserve what they earned. As long as everybody drinks the kool aid obediently, there's no immediate problem. Except that structural disparity is dangerous and needs a police state to perpetuate itself.

So, even if those CEO's think they're geniusses, really they're shooting in their foot by creating unlivable third world gated communities.

[name already taken]

1) Do you know how many CEOs there are?
2) Do you know how hard those people had to work to get there?
3) Do you know how much they contribute to the companies they run?
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

[Jobu]

Jealous much?

rofl

I don't care how much CEO's make. If someone is willing to pay them that much, it's what they're worth.

[name already taken]

Jealous much?

rofl

I don't care how much CEO's make. If someone is willing to pay them that much, it's what they're worth.
They vote themselves their salaries.

They have the power to vote it.

And they practically all know each other.

To get in the club, you have to be invited.

[Jobu]

They vote themselves their salaries.

They have the power to vote it.

And they practically all know each other.

To get in the club, you have to be invited.


Uh, no. The board of directors, compensation committees, et al determine what a CEO's pay will be and it is often tied to performance. For example, if the company's stock price does not meet expectations, the CEO may not receive full compensation in the form of options.

[Smersh]

No one is jealous, I think your the most jealous one jobu. We are only pointing out information.


In 1990, for instance, CEOs made about 107 times more than the average worker, while in 1982, the average CEO made only 42 times more.

[name already taken]

A CEO's salary is negotiated just like an NFL free agent. The directors hire them when they agree on compensation.

So no, most CEO's do not vote on their own salary.
The CEO is the director. He's the one who hires everybody.

His boss are the shareholders. Of which he is the biggest holder.

And he has friends in the same position as him.

Never gets near anybody else without his body guards.

[Jobu]

How am I jealous? I am inspired to reach the bar that they've raised.

Whether it's 50-1 or 400-1 makes no difference to me. I don't believe in class warfare. I believe everyone's living standards have risen regardless of the divide in earnings.

[Jobu]

The CEO is the director. He's the one who hires everybody.

His boss are the shareholders. Of which he is the biggest holder.

And he has friends in the same position as him.

Never gets near anybody else without his body guards.


In what, the movies?

[Mr.K]

No one is jealous, I think your the most jealous one jobu. We are only pointing out information.

He's not jealous, just convinced of becoming someone successful businessman or a CEO of large company with a 6 or 7 figure income.
Any skepticism, criticism or questioning is immediately perceived as jealousy and communism, hate, and being a loser.

[name already taken]

In what, the movies?
When was the last time you talked with Bill Gates ?

When was the last time when you were talking with someone who doesn't need to work for somebody else ?

Probably long ago, because these type of people have other types of obligations which prevent them from having free time with average people.

Even your Physician doesn't have too much of that time.

[Jobu]

When was the last time when you were talking with someone who doesn't need to work for somebody else ?

Every day.

[name already taken]

In what, the movies?
Sorry. This proves you don't hang with them.

[Jobu]

Are you under some illusion that the CEO of a company is always the founder/owner and thus the biggest shareholder?

You are sadly mistaken.

[Smersh]

Whether it's 50-1 or 400-1 makes no difference to me. I don't believe in class warfare. I believe everyone's living standards have risen regardless of the divide in earnings.
I have said this a few time already...

everyone's living standards do rise with technological progress. compared to someone in 1950, we have computers and the internet. The absolute position of dosen't neccessarly get worse (this usually happens only in periods of depression) but the relative position does. Decreasing share of the working class in the national income.

[name already taken]

Are you under some illusion that the CEO of a company is always the founder/owner and thus the biggest shareholder?

You are sadly mistaken.
Not always. Exception be made for Bill Gates. But he is elected by all the shareholders and having a big share himself sure helps.

The point is not who he is. The point is what power he has once he is there.

And the power he has that makes the most problem is the power of voting his own compensation.

Because the shareholders don't have any real power of negociation once he's there. He'l say: "My friend in So So Corp. earns more than this. And he will hire me for more."

End of the negociation.

[Jobu]

I have said this a few time already...

everyone's living standards do rise with technological progress. compared to someone in 1950, we have computers and the internet. The absolute position of dosen't neccessarly get worse (this usually happens only in periods of depression) but the relative position does. Decreasing share of the working class in the national income.

I think you are viewing it wrongly. The "national income" is not some huge pot we all throw our money into and then distribute. It's money which belongs to individuals who earn it, create it, spend it, etc.

The only truly national part is that which is taken a taxes by the federal government which is supposed to represent all of us. Of course that's a fantasy too but it's a nice fantasy.

[Jobu]

Not always. Exception be made for Bill Gates. But he is elected by all the shareholders and having a big share himself sure helps.

The point is not who he is. The point is what power he has once he is there.

And the power he has that makes the most problem is the power of voting his own compensation.

Because the shareholders don't have any real power of negociation once he's there. He'l say: "My friend in So So Corp. earns more than this. And he will hire me for more."

End of the negociation.

The board of directors have a choice not to hire him.

[annihilation]

The board of directors have a choice not to hire him.

Only if they can muster more votes than he can. Considering he is the largest share holder of microsoft thats pretty hard to do.

[Jobu]

Only if they can muster more votes than he can. Considering he is the largest share holder of microsoft thats pretty hard to do.

Not talking about Gates, I'm talking about other CEO's.

[name already taken]

I have said this a few time already...

everyone's living standards do rise with technological progress. compared to someone in 1950, we have computers and the internet. The absolute position of dosen't neccessarly get worse (this usually happens only in periods of depression) but the relative position does. Decreasing share of the working class in the national income.
Well, having the power to decide who gets to join the club and who doesn't is class warfare.

Deciding which jobs will be done in USA and which will be done overseas at 10 cents a dollar is class warfare.

Class warfare from the rich against those who are less rich.

Even if this class warfare is not answered to by the less than rich, it's still class warfare.

[Jobu]

Only in the minds of people like you is it class warfare.

[name already taken]

Only in the minds of people like you is it class warfare.
At least I have a mind of my own.

Not every CEO can make that claim.

[Freibier]

Let's jail the rich and distribute the wealth equally!
As far as I'm concerned, everyone with 10million+ should be placed against the nearest wall ...

[name already taken]

Let's jail the rich and distribute the wealth equally!
As far as I'm concerned, everyone with 10million+ should be placed against the nearest wall ...


I'm not in favor of such a measure. It would signal to everybody it's time to stop creating value.

What I would be in favour of would be a good taxing system. Those genius entrepreneurs cannot be geniusses in every branch. So to bring the results of their creations to their optimum in all branches of society, a tax system has to build the structures society needs for them.

Is it Ford who pays the roads ? Is it Boeing who pays for the International airports ? It's the tax system, without which there would not be any Ford Company and no Boeing Company, to name just those two.

[Jobu]

At least I have a mind of my own.

Not every CEO can make that claim.

Go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better.

[name already taken]

Go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better.
Oh, I don't need the approval of anyone for that.

[name already taken]

The board of directors have a choice not to hire him.
But they have the trouble of having to steal someone from another company, who will have pretty much the same demands, and probably worse.

[Jobu]

But they have the trouble of having to steal someone from another company, who will have pretty much the same demands, and probably worse.

And?

They can choose what is acceptable and what is not. If they want a cheaper option they can go with someone who has an unproven record, they can promote someone from within the company, etc.

Don't blame the CEO for getting what others are willing to give him.

[annihilation]

And?

They can choose what is acceptable and what is not. If they want a cheaper option they can go with someone who has an unproven record, they can promote someone from within the company, etc.

Don't blame the CEO for getting what others are willing to give him.

I have to agree here. If the board is stupid enough to throw tons of money out then the CEO would be a fool not to take it. Its the boards that decide what the CEO wage should be and they should try to keep it level headed sometimes.

[name already taken]

I have to agree here. If the board is stupid enough to throw tons of money out then the CEO would be a fool not to take it. Its the boards that decide what the CEO wage should be and they should try to keep it level headed sometimes.
Except that the CEO wages are skyrocketing and that the CEO's have been working on lobbying for tax cuts from the government to improve their performance rather than creating real value.

And this can become dangerous if nobody cares.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

[szr]

98% of the world po needs to start pulling its weight it seems...
x2.

It's not as if there is a finite amount of wealth in the world that needs to be shared. Wealth is created. All manner of things, including one's own hard work, can be turned into wealth.

[name already taken]

98% of the world po needs to start pulling its weight it seems...
The problem is if they start pulling really hard at the same time, it can break something. Prevention is better than cure. If directed at the source of tension.

[name already taken]

x2.

It's not as if there is a finite amount of wealth in the world that needs to be shared. Wealth is created. All manner of things, including one's own hard work, can be turned into wealth.
The question is not what is created, it is for whom is it created.

If it comes from the mind of rocket high paid executives who already have everything, it won't be the same as if it comes from a bunch micro-loan borrowers who can really create something from nothing and make miracles happen because they know where their problems are.

[annihilation]

Except that the CEO wages are skyrocketing and that the CEO's have been working on lobbying for tax cuts from the government to improve their performance rather than creating real value.

And this can become dangerous if nobody cares.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

But who fault is that? Its not the ceo but the board. The board should be smarter in handling their money.

[Smersh]

x2.

It's not as if there is a finite amount of wealth in the world that needs to be shared. Wealth is created. All manner of things, including one's own hard work, can be turned into wealth.

what about people who make wealth buying and trading stock, and through speculation, these people don't create wealth or produce anything.

[annihilation]

what about people who make wealth buying and trading stock, and through speculation, these people don't create wealth or produce anything.


Its a commodity as anything else that gets traded from one person to another.

[szr]

what about people who make wealth buying and trading stock, and through speculation, these people don't create wealth or produce anything.
You can make it, you can trade it, you can make it by trading it; money is extremely versatile and responsive. Simply by moving and being active, money can gain value.

[askDNA]

I'm not in favor of such a measure. It would signal to everybody it's time to stop creating value.

What I would be in favour of would be a good taxing system. Those genius entrepreneurs cannot be geniusses in every branch. So to bring the results of their creations to their optimum in all branches of society, a tax system has to build the structures society needs for them.

Is it Ford who pays the roads ? Is it Boeing who pays for the International airports ? It's the tax system, without which there would not be any Ford Company and no Boeing Company, to name just those two.

Wow, punish companies for developing and producing the ability to drive and fly, great concept:cantbeli:.

Yes, I understand and the knew the CEO:"avg" worker ratio already. Yes, some CEOs do control the company through the majority of shares or even a minority, and is there something wrong with that? Bill Gates founded Microsoft, he shouldn't be stripped of his wealth because of his work. Oh, the CEO is friends with the Board of Directors, what a surprise, maybe because of his interpersonal skills thats how he got the job. Do you think the CEO and the BoD should have strained relations? So do we cap CEO and other managers pay? How do companies compete for successful people to run their company if they all pay only $10m/yr for example? Price controls have proven to be a failure. You know what costs more to the company than the CEOs pay? Fat people. Fortune 500 companies should limit the amount of fat people they hire, that would mitigate costs.

[joe mama]

what about people who make wealth buying and trading stock, and through speculation, these people don't create wealth or produce anything.

Sure they do. If I buy a stock at $10 a share, and because of those people you mention trading, the stock goes up to $20, and I sell it, I've doubled my money, and everyone else who bought the stock low has had their investment become worth more. And despite the opinion of people that only "the rich" invest in stocks, a HUGE amount of stock holdings are held by pension funds and mutual which invest money that comes from "the poor".
The people you mention also require traders and bankers and a bunch of other people working to do their trading, which puts people to work.

[Mr.K]

Sure they do. If I buy a stock at $10 a share, and because of those people you mention trading, the stock goes up to $20, and I sell it, I've doubled my money, and everyone else who bought the stock low has had their investment become worth more. And despite the opinion of people that only "the rich" invest in stocks, a HUGE amount of stock holdings are held by pension funds and mutual which invest money that comes from "the poor".
The people you mention also require traders and bankers and a bunch of other people working to do their trading, which puts people to work.

Joe, guess where your 10$ profit comes from? If you made money , someone lost money, it's speculating. You seem to present the stock market as a place where everybody wins.
I own stocks, and guess what, you and me are small fish, the more money you got the greater the possibility of creating trends on the market, and thats how you make even more money, by scaring people while shaking the tree or fooling them with boosting the stock price.
Investing and trading are 2 different things. The latter one seems more dishonest to me , but it can give quicker gains. After all , it's all about "me".


You can make it, you can trade it, you can make it by trading it; money is extremely versatile and responsive. Simply by moving and being active, money can gain value.
Yeah and the gains are strictly artificial. That's why we have economic crisis every now and then.

[szr]

Yeah and the gains are strictly artificial. That's why we have economic crisis every now and then.Where did you learn that? Inflated or undervalued are not at all the same as "strictly artificial".

[Mr.K]

Where did you learn that? Inflated or undervalued are not at all the same as "strictly artificial".
Inflated or undervalued , those are just pretty words.
Its like calling a janator a "floor technician".

[Smersh]

I think they're called "maintenence operators"

[name already taken]

Yeah and the gains are strictly artificial. That's why we have economic crisis every now and then.
During the Middle Ages there were economic crisis.

An economic crisis during the Middle Ages started with bad weather, resulting in bad crops.

Then those bad crops created famines, and people with less to eat becoming less resistant to disease.

Third step was epidemics followed by a pandemic spreading throuh Europe and Middle-East originating from the pools of low resistance population to disease.

Do you see anything artificial in that ?

[Noble713]

Are you kidding me. Your saying capitalist economics began after colonalism? and colonialism was not at all a development of capitalism?.

My point is that colonialism is merely an extension of the pre-existing system of directly conquering others for economic gain. Instead of subjugating your immediate neighbors, nations subjugated primatives on the other side of the world. The concept isn't new, the Europeans were just able to increase their power projection due to the advances in ocean-going shipbuilding made during the Middle Ages. I was saying the beginning of the process predates the beginning of capitalism and therefore cannot be an effect of capitalism, not that capitalism started after the end of colonialism.



An example of when people demand decent wages, and decent labor laws, how this causes capital to leave the country? This is exactly what has happened in wealthy western nations.

Like the US?

"Foreign acquisitions of assets in the United States were $1,212.3 billion in 2005....U.S. acquisitions of assets abroad were $426.8 billion in 2005..."
from: http://bea.gov/bea/newsrel/intinvnewsrelease.htm




I would also point to places like Mexico and Jamiacia, where opening the economy has not helped the situation, and made them places only for cheap labor.

Being a place for cheap labor is not necessarily a bad thing. The economies of Taiwan and South Korea were built on their use of cheap of labor to produce export-oriented labor-intensive goods. China is following in their footsteps.




Second, during an interview with some policy leader at the WTO, he was asked has the opening of Veitnam, improved the lives of ordinary vietnamese. he responded with more consumer goods are available and that they have more access to trade. ( he never said, yes) As I've said before, it doesn't matter if 20 models of toasters are avialble to people, if they can't afford to buy bread, or nothing else.

Vietnam's GPD/capita, rated at PPP, has grown from $1850 to $2700 from 1999-2006. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=vm&v=67 That's a 46% increase, meanwhile the consumer price index has risen only ~27%. http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=472&idmid=3&ItemID=5175
So what makes you think that the ability of the average Vietnamese to buy bread has worsened?


We have to be able to at least agree on this point.As capitalism develops inequality increases and the share of working people in the national income drops?

Yes, that is probably true, but why is rising inequality bad? From 3000 BCE to 1700 CE virtually every human being had the same living conditions. We were all impoverish, subsistence-level farmers, unsure if we would survive each winter due to the risks of a poor harvest. Sure, inequality has risen since then, to astronomical levels. Why? Because it's just like Deng Xiaoping said when he took over China's economy in the early 80's : "Somebody has to get rich first." The problem isn't that some people are getting rich, it's that huge portions of humanity aren't. Populations need to be mobilized and their labor put to good use, instead of sitting around on marginal farmland wishing they had something to do. That mobilization and labor usage requires development, which has mostly been coming from foreign corporations. Throwing up barriers to trade is not the answer.

Here's a scenario from Wolf. Imagine if the United States had HUGE barriers to interstate trade. If you were from Florida, you couldn't sell goods in Georgia without paying huge import tariffs, exchanging Florida's currency for Georgia's, etc. Kansas would refuse to allow a manufacturing company from New Jersey to set up plants there, instead trying to jump-start completely self-sufficient industries on its own, when it has no knowledge or comparative advantage in them. Even if Kansas DID allow the Jersey company to move in, New Jersey's population would protest that Kansas workers were being exploited because their wages were lower than those in Jersey.

Do you think the US economy would be better off with our state economies balkanized like this? If not, then why suggest similar policies for the international economy?

[annihilation]

Here's a scenario from Wolf. Imagine if the United States had HUGE barriers to interstate trade. If you were from Florida, you couldn't sell goods in Georgia without paying huge import tariffs, exchanging Florida's currency for Georgia's, etc. Kansas would refuse to allow a manufacturing company from New Jersey to set up plants there, instead trying to jump-start completely self-sufficient industries on its own, when it has no knowledge or comparative advantage in them. Even if Kansas DID allow the Jersey company to move in, New Jersey's population would protest that Kansas workers were being exploited because their wages were lower than those in Jersey.


Isn't that what the chinese do to the americans in a way?

[Hawkeye]

Three cheers for capitalism :roll:

[Hunterhr]

Three cheers for capitalism :roll:

Yep, where even the poor can afford cell phones, TV's and phat rims.

[Smersh]

I don't have time to reply to everything.


Being a place for cheap labor is not necessarily a bad thing. The economies of Taiwan and South Korea were built on their use of cheap of labor to produce export-oriented labor-intensive goods. China is following in their footsteps Both Taiwan and South Korea did this domestically and weren't dominated by foreign capital. South Korea especially under relatevily strict state planning and not through 'free market' forces.

oh and high per capita, doesn't show how its distributed.

[name already taken]

Joe, guess where your 10$ profit comes from? If you made money , someone lost money, it's speculating.
This someone lost money only if he was fool enough to sell during a low.
Would've he waited for the price to raise again he wouldn't have lost any money.

Stock shares are not something you need on a day to day basis. If you want to sell because you need money, there is something called a balanced portfolio with which selling without loss can be done pretty much anytime.

I think what you are up against is the socialized private ownership of goods of production the stock exchange system permits to large groups of the population.

This doesn't exist in communist countries I heard of.

This same stock market system also permits autonomous creation of industries, by the same way of socialized private ownership, something that must pass through the ideological filter of the political party in communist countries.

So, to me, the stock market system authorizes a more widespread and decentralized say from the population in the future of the nation.

Of course, this system is not perfect, and it will provide these functions more or less efficiently to the population depending on the circumstances.

But the possibility is there.

[perdurabo]

This someone lost money only if he was fool enough to sell during a low.
Would've he waited for the price to raise again he wouldn't have lost any money.

But you have also short sell of stocks, if stocks go low and you predict they will go lower you sell stocks that aren't your property but property of your stock makler company, if they go lower you buy them and return them to owner. Cach is atleast on GPW in Warsaw bonds can go only 10% down on each sesion but they arent restricted in going up, so if you sell them they go high up you loose much more than on long position.

The biggest speculation goes on futures market(atleast here), they are basicly like horse racing bets but more fair and you can use them to secure your contracts...

[Smersh]

Do you think the US economy would be better off with our state economies balkanized like this? If not, then why suggest similar policies for the international economy? I'm not suggesting balkanization in any way, in fact I complely agree with you here. But the international economy does not work politically or legally the same way as the United States. In the United States their exists univeral labor laws, this is not the case in the international economy.

American law has safety requirments, it says children cannot work in such and such conditons, etc. etc. Would Americans tolerate if say Ohio or some other states removed these laws? If some states had these laws and others where forced into not having them to be 'competitive'

[Smersh]

Yes, that is probably true, but why is rising inequality bad?

Because extremely uneven development is bad! Development of some countries takes place at the cost of suffering for other countries. For the huge development of wealthy nations in Europe and the USA, that you mention soared after 1700, happened at the cost of huge suffering and a terrible price for people in Asia, Africa and Latin America (most of the world). who where conquered and colonized or made dependent. ie. rapid development of some countries meant economic enslavment of others, again which stunted their development.

why is it bad that more and more people have to share less and less wealth? Isn't that self-evident?

I don't think these are tendencies that can neccessary be stopped though. They occur natural as a rule in capitalism. what I mean is, you can't say, oh these problems are a result capitalism not being perfected or developed enough yet, we can fix it with reforms. The rise in inequality and uneven development is a general law of capitalism.

[Jobu]

why is it bad that more and more people have to share less and less wealth?

This is false. More wealth is being created every year and all are benefitting from it, some just moreso than others.

Of course the ones benefitting the most from the new wealth are the people who do the creating. It's as it should be.

[Smersh]

This is false. More wealth is being created every year and all are benefitting from it, some just moreso than others.

Of course the ones benefitting the most from the new wealth are the people who do the creating. It's as it should be.

What is false? I didn't say that more and more wealth ins't being created. what you said is not contradictory to what I said.

But the ones benefiting from more wealth, aren't creating it without the help and contributions and labor of millions of workers. I mean, its not like these people are creating wealth in isolation from society.

[Jobu]

The laborer risks nothing. If he works for a guy whose company fails, he can go down the street to the next company and do the same work.

It is the entrepreneur who risks. It is the investor who risks. If the company fails, they lose everything. They deserve to benefit the most from the new wealth they created because they are the people who made it happen.

[Smersh]

The laborer risks nothing. If he works for a guy whose company fails, he can go down the street to the next company and do the same work. I remember this same conversation in another thread. the laborer doesn't risk anything? what about not being able to feed his family or pay expenses etc. In some cases he may risk his health, he risks his time also.
The entrepenuer only risks capital, or becoming a worker himself. he fails he will have to work too.

[Jobu]

"...he can go down the street to the next company and do the same work."

[Smersh]

"...he can go down the street to the next company and do the same work."

that easy to get a job huh? This place down the street going to offer the same pay?

why are there millions of unemployed people then, right their just too lazy to find work. :)

[Jobu]

There is no shortage of work in the United States. Yes, it is extremely easy to find a job most of the time.

The trick is to have the skills that companies are looking for. If you're a skilled worker you can make a very good living. If you are an unskilled worker, expect to be paid accordingly.

"This place down the street going to offer the same pay?" Maybe more, maybe less, maybe the same. That's the chance you take as a laborer who chooses to work for someone else's company. Most likely it'll be the same since the market tends to set the standard.

[Smersh]

That's the chance you take as a laborer who chooses to work for someone else's company I thought you said there was no chance i.e risk, for the laborer.
The laborer risks nothing.

we are getting into other areas...If its so easy to find a job, why are there millions of people who can't and are unemployed.

[Jobu]

I thought you said there was no chance i.e risk, for the laborer.

we are getting into other areas...If its so easy to find a job, why are there millions of people who can't and are unemployed.

I still fail to see where the laborer risks anything.

As for unemployment:
-Some people choose to be unemplyed. Sad but true.
-Others refuse to take a temporary job that may pay less while they search for something better.
-Others refuse to accept that they are unskilled and should be cooking fries at McDonald's for minimum wage.
-Others are simply between jobs or have chosen to work in a niche field where their skills may not be in such high demand.
-Others are simply unemployable and need to take advantage of all the free schooling the country offers to make themselves marketable.
-etc.

[Friendly Fire]

I still fail to see where the laborer risks anything.

As for unemployment:
-Some people choose to be unemplyed. Sad but true.
-Others refuse to take a temporary job that may pay less while they search for something better.
-Others refuse to accept that they are unskilled and should be cooking fries at McDonald's for minimum wage.
-Others are simply between jobs or have chosen to work in a niche field where their skills may not be in such high demand.
-Others are simply unemployable and need to take advantage of all the free schooling the country offers to make themselves marketable.
-etc.


Is there a clown emo around?

[perdurabo]

they are in wrong place under wrong goverment?
Its fairly simple lower taxes means more ppl earn more so they can buy more if there is bigger demand there need to be supply so new jobs are created.
Everyone takes a risk. If you go on the streets airplane can crash on you, biulding can fall or rober kill you, we all take the risk. No risk => no activity => no income.

[Friendly Fire]

This someone lost money only if he was fool enough to sell during a low.
Would've he waited for the price to raise again he wouldn't have lost any money.

Stock shares are not something you need on a day to day basis. If you want to sell because you need money, there is something called a balanced portfolio with which selling without loss can be done pretty much anytime.

I think what you are up against is the socialized private ownership of goods of production the stock exchange system permits to large groups of the population.

This doesn't exist in communist countries I heard of.

This same stock market system also permits autonomous creation of industries, by the same way of socialized private ownership, something that must pass through the ideological filter of the political party in communist countries.

So, to me, the stock market system authorizes a more widespread and decentralized say from the population in the future of the nation.

Of course, this system is not perfect, and it will provide these functions more or less efficiently to the population depending on the circumstances.

But the possibility is there.


Lol...well it exists in China!

Please you don't to take such non sense into a further debate.

It would be a disgrace.

Let's keep this friendly!

[loganinkosovo]

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

And pay most of the taxes.

[Smersh]

I still fail to see where the laborer risks anything.You still beleive the laborer risks nothing?! I can't understand this, how can you think this. Lets say it is reletavily easy to find another job (which isn't always true), what if this job pays much less then your previous job, and you can no longer afford certain things, or your previous life style, what if this means bunkruptcy or losing your home.

wealth includes what is left after taxes and other depleters, its says this if you actually take a look at the study
Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

And pay most of the taxes.

[Jobu]

You still beleive the laborer risks nothing?! I can't understand this, how can you think this. Lets say it is reletavily easy to find another job, what if this job pays much less then your previous job, and you can no longer afford certain things, or your previous life style, what if this means bunkruptcy or losing your house.

You're a laborer. You get paid according to what the market sets for someone with your skills (or lack of skills).

If you lose your job and the next job pays less, keep looking for one that pays better. It's not like you're irreplacable. If you were, you wouldn't be a laborer.

[Smersh]

You're a laborer. You get paid according to what the market sets for someone with your skills (or lack of skills).

If you lose your job and the next job pays less, keep looking for one that pays better. It's not like you're irreplacable. If you were, you wouldn't be a laborer. yes, but what if in the mean time, your unable to pay bills! for instance missing credit payments could get you into serious finicial trouble. There is great risk for the laborer if his workplace fails.

How can you be so blind to not see this.

[Friendly Fire]

they are in wrong place under wrong goverment?
Its fairly simple lower taxes means more ppl earn more so they can buy more if there is bigger demand there need to be supply so new jobs are created.
Everyone takes a risk. If you go on the streets airplane can crash on you, biulding can fall or rober kill you, we all take the risk. No risk => no activity => no income.


Lower taxes? Well lowering taxes mean less public services, less public services mean a widening gap between the have and have not.

The average boss doesn't react to the tax lowering as you may think. He will paying the Worker at the same price and get the cash for his own profit. That's why lowering the public spending in times of trouble is a social suicide!

Further more taxes that are lowered hit the poorest far more quickly than the richest. Lowering the taxes will artificially increase the prices, it's called inflation (NAIRU gap) and the M3 (monetary sum in circualtion) tally will simply cause hyper inflation. That's what happened in Russia in the early 90's!

[Friendly Fire]

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

And pay most of the taxes.



Technically ...no! There are countless tax sheltering schemes including charity and mecenery/art sponsoring that still put the burden in the other 98%

So even when taken proportionally the richest 2% pay less than the poorest 25%.

And I won't speak about improductive money!

[Jobu]

yes, but what if in the mean time, your unable to pay bills! for instance missing credit payments could get you into serious finicial trouble. There is great risk for the laborer if his workplace fails.

How can you be so blind to not see this.

Everyone must live within their means. If you're a laborer and can't pay the bills, that's your fault for spending so much. Nobody owes you more than you are worth.

[Smersh]

are you crazy? Its your fault for spending too much? Say you worked as a manager or in a car factory. While working their you buy yourself a home, buy a car, provide for your family a decent life. then the place shuts down and you become unemployed or find yourself in a much less paying job.

you would lose those things, that you could afford on your previos salary. So the laborer is risking! sometimes quite alot. How can you think this? You haven't known anyone who has lost a job before?

[Jobu]

A manager is not a laborer. He is management. He makes decisions that determine in which the direction the company will go and he must oversee the the laborers to make sure they are doing their work accordingly. That's why he gets paid more than the other workers.

Try again.

[Smersh]

A manager is not a laborer. He is management. He makes decisions that determine in which the direction the company will go and he must oversee the the laborers to make sure they are doing their work accordingly. That's why he gets paid more than the other workers.

Try again.

alright, lets say engineer at a firm. you attack a single word, instead of the content.

(I'm sorry, I see a hired manager as a laborer too, last time I checked a laborer was someone who worked for wages, in either mental or physicall arena, which would include some managers) many times managers are promoted right out of the 'laborers' too

[Friendly Fire]

Everyone must live within their means. If you're a laborer and can't pay the bills, that's your fault for spending so much. Nobody owes you more than you are worth.

That's easy isn't it...So you're assuming that you chose to be a labourer!

Great son, Samuelson strong, and Pareto even stronger!

Dude you're getting out of the line there.

[Friendly Fire]

alright, lets say engineer at a firm. you attack a single word, instead of the content.


No let's stick to the historical background of the labourer. That's how these little ignorants keep avoiding arguments by adressing decontextualized points.

[Noble713]

Isn't that what the chinese do to the americans in a way?

Yes, it is.

[Jobu]

alright, lets say engineer at a firm. you attack a single word, instead of the content.

(I'm sorry, I see a hired manager as a laborer too, last time I checked a laborer was someone who worked for wages, in either mental or physicall arena, which would include some managers)

Engineers tend to work for salary which is negotiated, much like a CEO's. I wouldn't lump them in as laborers who work for wages.

[Smersh]

alright, if sementacs is so important to you, lets say a generic highly paid laborer. now can you actually deal with the content of what I've been saying and accept that laborers and all workers risk:

thier health, livelyhood, standard of living, finicial standing, etc. etc.

[Jobu]

It's not semantics to make distinctions on how somebody's pay is determined.

A generic, highly paid laborer can find the same work for the same pay elsewhere because of the market for his services. If the company fails, his career is the same. It simply moves him to a different company where he does the same work.

It is the entrepreneur who risked his savings to start the company. It is the entrepreneur who took out the loan to start the company. It is the venture capitalist who provided the money to start the company. If the company fails, they lose everything they've risked.

The laborer doesn't.

[Friendly Fire]

Engineers tend to work for salary which is negotiated, much like a CEO's. I wouldn't lump them in as laborers who work for wages.


Wages of labour are negotiated too, it's the way teh negotiation goes that divides the two. Usally the white collar asks and recieves, the blue collar is asked to recieve!

[Friendly Fire]

It's not semantics to make distinctions on how somebody's pay is determined.

A generic, highly paid laborer can find the same work for the same pay elsewhere because of the market for his services. If the company fails, his career is the same. It simply moves him to a different company where he does the same work.

It is the entrepreneur who risked his savings to start the company. It is the entrepreneur who took out the loan to start the company. It is the venture capitalist who provided the money to start the company. If the company fails, they lose everything they've risked.

The laborer doesn't.

Well most of the money issued to "entrepreneurs" comes from third party savings! Venture capitalist? It's called a bank nowadays an it risks little!

[Jobu]

Wages of labour are negotiated too, it's the way teh negotiation goes that divides the two. Usally the white collar asks and recieves, the blue collar is asked to recieve!

False generalization.

Everybody knows what they are getting into when they sign. Freedom is a wonderful thing isn't it? You can choose not to sign if it is not to your satisfaction.

[Jobu]

Well most of the money issued to "entrepreneurs" comes from third party savings! Venture capitalist? It's called a bank nowadays an it risks little!

The borrower risks.

[Smersh]

This is getting really tiring. I'm getting tired of this.I'm done trying to explain this to you. you claim that non-entreprenueral people risk nothing. alright, we have debated 2 pages for nothing. I'm curious to see if other people agree with you.

Most people including laborer, which you hate so much, can't afford to pay for things like a home, or car without burrowing so I guess they risk too afterall, right.

feel free to discusses the other issues raised, before we got into this pointless debate about non-etranpenurial risk.

[Jobu]

I don't care if they agree or not. I live it everyday.

I'm heading home now, cya.

[Friendly Fire]

False generalization.

Everybody knows what they are getting into when they sign. Freedom is a wonderful thing isn't it? You can choose not to sign if it is not to your satisfaction.


Freedom? LIterally it means without boundaries...money and pecunial needs are a flaw to the concept! Bollocks and Cynism Strong!

I love you too!

Wich borrower? If he has a right B-Plan it will go smooth, otherwise he wouldn't had the money!

Yes I can play catch the Cynism too!

[Noble713]

Jobu, I think the argument that Smersh is trying to make, and that I agree with, is that there are two categories of people in a capitalist system:

1) Capitalists. These are the owners and entrepreneurs who allocate their capital to take advantage of economic opportunities and are rewarded with profits.

2) Workers. If you don't own the business at which you work, you are a worker. A stock broker on Wall Street is still just a worker, an employee.


are you crazy? Its your fault for spending too much? Say you worked as a manager or in a car factory. While working their you buy yourself a home, buy a car, provide for your family a decent life. then the place shuts down and you become unemployed or find yourself in a much less paying job.

you would lose those things, that you could afford on your previos salary.

Clearly this individual failed to save a sufficient portion of his income to cover the transition period between jobs.


American law has safety requirments, it says children cannot work in such and such conditons, etc. etc. Would Americans tolerate if say Ohio or some other states removed these laws? If some states had these laws and others where forced into not having them to be 'competitive'

You have a point here, but much as the developed west went through a turbulent period of labor rights movements during the Industrial Revolution, I expect the current crop of up-and-comers (China, India, etc.) will as well. But it has to come from internal pressures, no amount of external b!tching on our part will result in anything positive. (Ramping up tariffs to punish the offending governments is certainly a step in the wrong direction.)


Because extremely uneven development is bad!

And rapid globalization is the best way to correct the previously un-even development. However, uneven development != inequality. See (1) below.


Development of some countries takes place at the cost of suffering for other countries.

Economic development is not a zero-sum game!



For the huge development of wealthy nations in Europe and the USA, that you mention soared after 1700, happened at the cost of huge suffering and a terrible price for people in Asia, Africa and Latin America (most of the world). who where conquered and colonized or made dependent. ie. rapid development of some countries meant economic enslavment of others, again which stunted their development.

Can you seriously say with a straight face that sub-Saharan Africa would be better off today if white men had never set foot on the continent?


(1) Do you feel that a janitor should be paid the same wage for his labor as a nuclear physicist?

If yes, why? The net productivity/value of the physicist's labor is certainly higher than that of the unskilled janitor.

If no, then over time the two will accumulate different quantities of net wealth, i.e. there will be inequality.

Let's say the janitor gets $6/hour and the nuclear physicist $7/hour. While the physicist is only 50% of the labor force he garners 53% of the wages. Is this acceptable to you? Why or why not? How is it different from 2% garnering 50%?

Who determines what level of inequality is "okay", and on based on what criteria?

Also, both of these people can be living in a single uniformly-developed region and still have inequality. Just look at any area in Western Europe or North America: relatively even development but still sizeable wealth inequality.

[Hunterhr]

Freedom? LIterally it means without boundaries...money and pecunial needs are a flaw to the concept! Bollocks and Cynism Strong!

Good thing we're not talking about the literal definition of freedom.

[Smersh]

Can you seriously say with a straight face that sub-Saharan Africa would be better off today if white men had never set foot on the continent?

I haven't had a chance to look at look at the rest. But I absolutely would yes! for hundreds of years of catering to europen slavery wouldnd't have been constanty taking Africa healthiest people, instead of real economic development. some estimate as many as 100 million afticans may have died as a direct cause of slavery. for these people africa would have been much better off.
second most of the tribal conflicts and hot spots in africa, are a result of the artificial national borders created by European Imperialists.
third you sounds like an imperialist yourself, 'we civilized them' attitude. Even if they miantained their traditional life-styles and had no contact with europeans they would be in a better state then today.
what about native americans? or the latin american civlizations, I thinkthey would be better off, too. For these people economic development was absolutely a zero sum game.

[Smersh]

(1) Do you feel that a janitor should be paid the same wage for his labor as a nuclear physicist? No. I never said they should. Both are working people (at least we seem to agree here, unlike me and jobu), the nuclear physicist does not exploit anyone. He doesn't make his income from the work of other people.

[Mr.K]

False generalization.

Everybody knows what they are getting into when they sign. Freedom is a wonderful thing isn't it? You can choose not to sign if it is not to your satisfaction.

Can you choose not to eat, have a roof over your head and not pay bills, credit cards, mortgages and so on?
BTW I'm still waiting your PM about the MBA.

[souljacker]

Jobu, do you really believe in the "equal opportunity" story? Do you really believe a child coming from a poor family has the same possibilities like a child from a wealthy family - all other factors held constant? There may be some exceptions with someone getting lucky, but usually it takes some generations to gain access to all the informal networks which define whos goin to make it.

Another thing i dont get: Why does critizism of the capitalist status quo label one as a commie? Theres so much to improve - economic theory is not a natural law.

btw: Registered a while back, but so far i just passively "consumed" the content of this forum. Hi!

[Smersh]

I think that we have gone to such great lengths to demonize the Nazi Regime post-WW2 that it has caused us to paint the entire concept of the wholesale slaughter of civilians with the same "evil" brush, regardless of the benefits.

I can see how your thinking works now noble, this is absolutely disgusting.

[Friendly Fire]

Good thing we're not talking about the literal definition of freedom.


Yes we are...no one is free!

[Hunterhr]

Yes we are...no one is free!

Exactly. Expecting complete and utter freedom is like expecting the ability to levitate.

[FromanMD]

This study doesn't tell the whole frightening truth that 80% of the wealth belongs to 10% of the population and that same 10% make concerted efforts to stifle and decrease wages for the other 90%.

The problem with this is that is has become unacceptable to trade outside of the markets controlled by this elite class and there is officially no alternative to being part of the "company store" in this country.

Try bartering,selling items that are not taxed in their prodcution or even just gradually aquiring real estate as an individual to amass wealth in a way that this 10% can't profit from and you will have the IRS,ATF,DEA,INS,FDA,EPA(pick one) on your doorstep ready to dissolve everything you have worked for.

You salary in the USA is determined by the same people who determine the cost of the goods you are working to afford in the first place.that why wages have only increased 15% since 1987 but the cost of a house or car has increased 100-200%.This is in an attempt to force the population into borrowing money from this elite 10% to afford items their grandparents could easily pay cash for even though they were less educated and earned their employers less money.

Basically if you want to live as well as your grandparents you have to borrow money and pay usury for what they could easily afford.

My first house cost $48,000 in 1989 and now that same house is worth $200,000 and they have not done a single major improvment to it since I owned it other than carpeting over it's beautiful wood floors.

I earned $35,000 per year then and the same job I did then pays only $40,000 per year now so a younger person starting out can't afford to buy a house period.



It's called "Wage Slavery" and it's not a "free market" it's a captive consumer base and money borrowed from the FED and loaned to you by the "elite 10%" making something from nothing(not "creating wealth" as some have stated) and getting more of your productive time and hours of life for giving you(the employee) less and less buying power until finally you show up to work just for rent,food,healthcare and if you decide to stop being squeezed you will starve and your kids become prisoners of the state.

70% of Americans born after 1980 will NEVER be able to afford a single family house in their lifetime whereas 60% of those born before then are already home owners(or paying borrowed mortgage money).

I'd hate to be a young person just starting out in this day and age :(

[Smersh]

good post froman. these developments are no accident.

[Friendly Fire]

Exactly. Expecting complete and utter freedom is like expecting the ability to levitate.

Great, now talk to Jobu!

[Hunterhr]

Great, now talk to Jobu!

Jobu has the right idea.


good post froman. these developments are no accident.

I was unaware that anyone thought accumulation of wealth fell from the sky.

[Smersh]

I meant monopoly control over finance capital that is also backed by the state, i.e The FED and other organizations. That force you to burrow money to be able to afford certain things. and also the rising cost of living.

[name already taken]

I was unaware that anyone thought accumulation of wealth fell from the sky.
No. It comes from your pocket.

[FromanMD]

Jobu has the right idea.



I was unaware that anyone thought accumulation of wealth fell from the sky.

Wealth is not truly accumulated and is no longer tangibly equated to any material substance.The monetary units of measurement we use today are not backed by anything but the promise of accrued interest paid by central banking systems.Wealth is manufactured at the expense of those who produce goods and services vs borrowed money that doesn't even really exist yet.

If the United States were put on the auction block and every piece of property and every resource sold for it's current value it would only reduce the national debt to the FED bankers by 50%.

The appearance of wealth is the manipulation of the consumer/labor market using them as the forecast to create more vapor money at the behest of the FED and this vapor money is what get's stuffed into the accounts of the wealthiest 10%.

The more work you can get out of the plebes for the least money while raising the prices of the goods and sevices that you provide for them(reducing their buying power) gives you a margin against which you can accumulate this "vapor money" but is really a crooked scam that is eventually going to destroy the economies of the west and destabilize the democracies of the world.

This plan is starting to unravel all over the world and that is why Gold is going nuts.When our currency was backed by Gold wealth was actually wealth.

Capitalism within ethical limits is fuel for modernization and innovation and creates a society in which anyone willing to work hard and apply themselves can expect a better life than their anscestors but when those ethics are stripped away and raw profit is the only goal with very few ethical restraints it becomes oppressive and destructive and even working every hour of daylight will not bring wealth(unless your wealth comes from financially enslaving/ensnaring others).

[Durandal]

I meant monopoly control over finance capital that is also backed by the state, i.e The FED and other organizations. That force you to burrow money to be able to afford certain things. and also the rising cost of living.

Force people to buy what?

I chose to pay cash for a used car then learned how to fix it. I have never bought a NEW car.

I chose to buy a home and go into debt as a risk in hopes to make money of its sale.

I also chose to live within my means and save money, even if it was, at times on 5.00 or 10.00 in month.

But this isn't about me its about what people are FORCED to buy. I'm curious.

[Smersh]

Force people to buy what?
you quoted and put in bold what I said, then said something else. Did I say forced to buy ,or forced to burrow? *borrow

[kosse]

Capitalism within ethical limits is fuel for modernization and innovation and creates a society in which anyone willing to work hard and apply themselves can expect a better life than their anscestors but when those ethics are stripped away and raw profit is the only goal with very few ethical restraints it becomes oppressive and destructive and even working every hour of daylight will not bring wealth(unless your wealth comes from financially enslaving/ensnaring others).

You hit the nail in the head. I think people generally live happier lifes and are more ready to contribute to their community in more equal societies where income differences are smaller and everyone has more or less the same opportunities. Removal of ethical restraints is dangerous.. if trade unions movement and emloyers are not roughly equal in strenght it will lead to what you called "oppressive and destructive" degradation of the employees benefits and rights. It kills all motivation to do good work, people who cannot accumulate wealth start to become outcasts and social problems multiply. Of course enterprises will profit greatly..for some time. Then the whole society starts to go slide down the gutter.

[FromanMD]

Force people to buy what?

I chose to pay cash for a used car then learned how to fix it. I have never bought a NEW car.

I chose to buy a home and go into debt as a risk in hopes to make money of its sale.

I also chose to live within my means and save money, even if it was, at times on 5.00 or 10.00 in month.

But this isn't about me its about what people are FORCED to buy. I'm curious.

You make the mistake of equating your personal life experiences as the baseline when your situation is neither common nor within repeatable limits outside of your current situation.

I can work on my car,you can work on your car but the single mother who has worked at the dry cleaners for 10 years cannot.She lives where there is a lack of reliable public transport and has to have a car.Her old car that she was able to save cash for now costs more to repair than it was initially worth and the same 10% who drove up the cost of the auto repair and the parts needed to accomplish it did so to make borrowing their money to buy either new car or to pay for the repair of her old car with borrowed money in the form of a credit card.She can however afford the initial costs of purchasing a new disposable economy car and the monthly payment will just about consume every single last penny of her disposable income.She really has no choice if she wants to make her rent next month,feed her offspring and pay for their daycare while she is at work other than to buy another car using Usury(she could start dealing drugs or selling her body but these things too are not taxable and are not able to be turned into raw profit for the Elite 10% so they have been declared illegal).





This person has been forced under duress to participate with the threat of losing her job,homelessness and starvation as the result of not buying/borrowing into the "Company Store" the only realistic alternatives are illegal income generating schemes that the elite 10% have somehow managed to convince us are immoral when they do far worse on a daily basis ;)

[Durandal]

I can work on my car,you can work on your car but the single mother who has worked at the dry cleaners for 10 years cannot.She lives where there is a lack of reliable public transport and has to have a car.Her old car that she was able to save cash for now costs more to repair than it was initially worth and the same 10% who drove up the cost of the auto repair and the parts needed to accomplish it did so to make borrowing their money to buy either new car or to pay for the repair of her old car with borrowed money in the form of a credit card.She can however afford the initial costs of purchasing a new disposable economy car and the monthly payment will just about consume every single last penny of her disposable income.She really has no choice if she wants to make her rent next month,feed her offspring and pay for their daycare while she is at work other than to buy another car using Usury(she could start dealing drugs or



This person has been forced under duress to participate with the threat of losing her job,homelessness and starvation as the result of not buying/borrowing into the "Company Store" the only realistic alternatives are illegal income generating schemes that the elite 10% have somehow managed to convince us are immoral when they do far worse on a daily basis ;)

Again, what is someone being forced to do? A single mom is not being FORCED to buy a home or take a loan to BUY a new car at exorbitant prices.

I also enjoy the part about how the 10% of the elite have taught us selling drugs, fraud, theft, and what ever illegal method a person would gain income. That's a funny read.

[Smersh]

I also enjoy the part about how the 10% of the elite have taught us selling drugs, fraud, theft, and what ever illegal method a person would gain income. I think you have reading problems. Thats not what he said. He says they have tuaght us that those are immoral, when they do worse, "on a daily basis".

No one is forcing you to buy, But if you choose to buy, you are forced to borrow is the issue. and I don't know how many people choose not to have a car, or a place to live.

[FromanMD]

Again, what is someone being forced to do? A single mom is not being FORCED to buy a home or take a loan to BUY a new car at exorbitant prices.

I also enjoy the part about how the 10% of the elite have taught us selling drugs, fraud, theft, and what ever illegal method a person would gain income. That's a funny read.

I accidentally posted that before I could finish my thought but the point is that wage fixing and profitting immensly from the workers they are enslaving is not morally superior to drug dealing,prostitution,selling untaxed alcohol,guns,produce and that she would be placing herself in a compromised position to be able to earn enough money outside of the wage slavery/usury/captive consumer system.


The unchecked Elite 10% has done away with everything from worker protections to usury regulations to environmental regulations in the pursuit of record profits all of which are morally and ethically irresponsible and the final caveat is to make any practice that takes the scope of a man's quest to improve his position depite their best efforts to keep him in bondage are declared illegal.It's even illegal to keep too much currency on your person or effects without declaring it to the bureaucrats charged with encforcing their lattice work of oppression when frankly it shouldn't be any of their business if your mattress is stuffed with 100 dollar bills and you never worked a job in your whole life.

MY employer spends $300,000 per years in expenses for the $3,000,000 per year that my labors bring in and my portion of that is $70,000 per year.This would seem like a decent level of pay except for the fact that this pay is only 20% higher than the same position paid in the late 1970s when houses,cars,consumer goods were a fraction of their present cost.

there was a time when a person at my income level(in adjusted dollars) could save money for a couple of years and pay cash for a house,car,college tuition for their kids and considering that I am considerably better off than most Americans and now have to borrow money to purchase a modest house is proof that the market has been manipulated do that this Elite 10% can find a way to get their hands in my pocket.

By the way there are only a fraction of "single mothers" who will ever be anything but renters because this economy now requires the income of 2 middle class people to buy a pathetic hovel in the outer suburbs 30 miles from the downtown where people work when the average construction worker could buy a house outright if they saved their money for a couple of years prior to the mid 1980s.

Keep Drinking The Koolaid Durandalrofl

[Durandal]

No one is forcing you to buy, But if you choose to buy, you are forced to borrow is the issue. and I don't know how many people choose not to have a car, or a place to live.

W
T
F


I think we can agree that the choice is not JUST massive debt or nothing. A little common sense here.

[Durandal]

you quoted and put in bold what I said, then said something else. Did I say forced to buy ,or forced to burrow? *borrow

I am assuming you meant BORROW. I went back and double checked, the quote is correct.

[Durandal]

Keep Drinking The Koolaid Durandalrofl

OK...I'm done, go back to whining.

[Smersh]

I am assuming you meant BORROW. I went back and double checked, the quote is correct.

I wrote Borrow didn't I! It in my post! have you been drinking?

[Durandal]

I wrote Borrow didn't I! It in my post! have you been drinking?

Nothing...I wish. I'm the DD tonight.

This is what you wrote (exactly):


Originally Posted by Smersh
I meant monopoly control over finance capital that is also backed by the state, i.e The FED and other organizations. That force you to burrow money to be able to afford certain things. and also the rising cost of living.

And I still ask, forced how?

[name already taken]

W
T
F


I think we can agree that the choice is not JUST massive debt or nothing. A little common sense here.
2% of the population owning 50% of all wealth leaves less and less room for common sense for anybody not in their club.

When the 2% will own 80% of all wealth, the remaining 98% can consider themselves to be slaves.

Happened before, will happen again, not in my backyard I hope.

[Smersh]

And I still ask, forced how?

this is been described a few times already by Froman in much more detail. fairly simple: you need to borrow, in order to pay for certain things like a car or home. since, your income can no longer pay for the items without borrowed money. understand?

according to Froman this has happened in the last 20 years.

[Durandal]

2% of the population owning 50% of all wealth leaves less and less room for common sense for anybody not in their club.

When the 2% will own 80% of all wealth, the remaining 98% can consider themselves to be slaves.

Happened before, will happen again, not in my backyard I hope.

A nice emotional reply, but it has nothing to do with what I asked.

[name already taken]

this is been described a few times already by Froman in much more detail. fairly simple: you need to borrow, in order to pay for certain things like a car or home. since, your income can no longer pay for the items without borrowed money. understand?
Depends on who owns the goods of production. The 2% or the 98% ?

But contrary to what Stalin wrote, it's not inevitable. This happens something like 50 years after Stalin predicted it was to happen.

If those genius capitalists would remember what happened the last time they tried this in the 20's and not pretend it was the fault of FDR, things could look better.

What is the most needed is the right cause, a goal everybody can agree on, and things will get back to order. Such a goal everybody agrees on is called a paradygm.

Global warming could be one, peak oil could be another, everybody feeling the urgency and the overwhelming size of the threath, those on top would stop to pull the blanket on their side.

But before this can be presented and accepted by the population, permission must be asked to the 2%.

[name already taken]

A nice emotional reply, but it has nothing to do with what I asked.
Froman explained this in more details:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2145932&postcount=230

In this field, things have to be understood in terms of trends. There are no exact answers.

[name already taken]

Nothing...I wish. I'm the DD tonight.

And I still ask, forced how?

That's the job of the marketing strategist to find how.

Most of the time, the guy on the top of the food chain in the corporation is the best salesman.

[Durandal]

this is been described a few times already by Froman in much more detail. fairly simple: you need to borrow, in order to pay for certain things like a car or home. since, your income can no longer pay for the items without borrowed money. understand?

You do not need to borrow. That's what I do not get.

Yeah, you may have a credit card, and that credit card should be a temporary thing. Throw debt onto it and then take it down to zero at the end of the month. Only complete idiots run a balance on it. Not doing so, that's a CHOICE.

You need a car, save some money buy one. Don't buy a NEW one. Buy a used one. Learn how to do the basic fix it skills and preventive maintenance and no money is borrowed. Not doing that...that's a choice.

You need a home? Then either save the money or take a loan out. If you cannot do that, rent a damn apartment. I did for the first ten years of my adult life. I have friends either by choice or by income that are still doing it. Taking on a massive mortgage payment so you can live in a building 4 to 5 times the size of you grandparents first home. That's a choice.

[name already taken]

what about people who make wealth buying and trading stock, and through speculation, these people don't create wealth or produce anything.
Yes they do, but in an information basis. There's no one holding the Holy Truth in the capitalist system. So, truth must be found through experimentation and that's what these guys in the stock exchange do every day.

When the system becomes controlled by a few speculators controlling all the others, the system grips.

But even this is better than "the Holy Truth" to decide the future of the nation.

Right now, 2% owning 50% of world's wealth begins to look like this 2% knows the Holy Truth. Or so they say in their Kool Aid.

When this will collapse, and collapses happen all the time in our system, and we're not much affected with them, they'll blame those in the 98% for their failure.

It will be quite distracting.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

These are some of the things I would do to make it easier for people who are low to middle income earners.

Government to set up a fund for the sole purpose of providing people with loans that do not incur interest. Have this means tested so only people who earn below a set amount are eligble. Once they start earning above said a amount interest can start to kick in.

by legislation prevent banks from charging all fees on savings accounts and transaction fees.

Shareholders are to determine the board of directors wages. Spare me this thing about attracting tallent.

Nationalise a key company in each major industry to force down prices. multi-nationals will still make money. Don't worry about that.

[name already taken]

These are some of the things I would do to make it easier for people who are low to middle income earners.

Government to set up a fund for the sole purpose of providing people with loans that do not incur interest. Have this means tested so only people who earn below a set amount are eligble. Once they start earning above said a amount interest can start to kick in.

by legislation prevent banks from charging all fees on savings accounts and transaction fees.

Shareholders are to determine the board of directors wages. Spare me this thing about attracting tallent.

Nationalise a key company in each major industry to force down prices. multi-nationals will still make money. Don't worry about that.
Someone won the 2006 Nobel Peace prize for implementing one of your ideas.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/yunus-interview.html
http://www.grameenfoundation.org/nobel_prize/yunus_congrats.php?gclid=CNeZ0fHvhokCFRMWFQodSUb_KQ

A bank making low interest micro loans to the needy in the third world.

I agree it's a bit more extreme than what you are stating, but it's in line with the principle.

Now, trying to convince billion dollar profit making western banks this would be in their interest is a difficult task.

[Smersh]

Yeah, you may have a credit card, and that credit card should be a temporary thing. Throw debt onto it and then take it down to zero at the end of the month. Only complete idiots run a balance on it. Not doing so, that's a CHOICE. I remember reading the average american has 8,000 dollars of debt on their creidt cards. credit card companies make their money from people paying fees, and interest and credit card companies have been having record profits in the last few years.


You do not need to borrow. That's what I do not get... Then either save the money or take a loan out.Not very practical to save up 200,000 to 500,000 dollars, and these are for very modest homes.

[Noble713]

I remember reading the average american has 8,000 dollars of debt on their creidt cards. credit card companies make their money from people paying fees, and interest and credit card companies have been having record profits in the last few years.


And that is entirely the fault of the average American for spending huge sums of money that they don't have now and probably won't have in the future.




Not very practical to save up 200,000 to 500,000 dollars, and these are for very modest homes.

A 3-4 bedroom, 2-car garage house is in now way "modest". I recently read an article about how the square footage of American houses has skyrocketed over the past 5 decades even though the average family size has continued to decline. The result is large portions of the house going unused year-round. Many have both a living room and a family room, but the living room is only used as a sitting area during special occasions/holidays and is otherwise little more than a display of fancy furniture. All real activity is in the family room, where the entertainment center usually is.

[Noble713]

But I absolutely would yes! for hundreds of years of catering to europen slavery wouldnd't have been constanty taking Africa healthiest people, instead of real economic development.

Real economic development in Africa? rofl Sub-Saharan Africa has been more or less technologically stagnant for the past 1500 years (I think that's when certain groups figured out how to make steel). What makes you think that some miraculous developments would have occurred over the past 500 years without outside impetus?



some estimate as many as 100 million afticans may have died as a direct cause of slavery.

Have you ever met an immortal? I never have. News flash: ALL people die.



for these people africa would have been much better off.
second most of the tribal conflicts and hot spots in africa, are a result of the artificial national borders created by European Imperialists.
third you sounds like an imperialist yourself, 'we civilized them' attitude. Even if they miantained their traditional life-styles and had no contact with europeans they would be in a better state then today.
what about native americans? or the latin american civlizations, I thinkthey would be better off, too. For these people economic development was absolutely a zero sum game.

As a decendent of both imported African slaves AND Native Americans, I definitely feel much better off sitting in my climate-controlled apartment with access to information from the world over at my fingertips and quality healthcare minutes away, than sitting in a mud hut in the bush, knowing only how to throw a spear, shoot a bow and collect berries and wondering if I'll contract some disease from bad water or an infection and die before I reach 30.
:bash:



I can see how your thinking works now noble, this is absolutely disgusting.

Perhaps if the Europeans had been a bit more thorough in exterminating my ancestors, you wouldn't have to listen to me expousing similar philosophies. :)

[techrep]

This is getting really tiring. I'm getting tired of this.I'm done trying to explain this to you. you claim that non-entreprenueral people risk nothing. alright, we have debated 2 pages for nothing. I'm curious to see if other people agree with you.


I admire your patience Smersh. When I read Jobu's stuff, it is like bits from a textbook being read back to us. By this I mean it sounds good in theory but in the real world things are more complicated. I would assume that Jobu has not traveled widely. I'm not saying I have but I have visited parts of Eastern Europe and South America. That was a real eye opener for me. There are many people there who are trapped by circumstance.

For those who say, "yeah, that's because they aren't free and capitalistic like the US." Well, I see this happening in the US. An increasing percentage of the population is just getting by and it does not seem that all boats are being lifted by the rising tide. I'm not saying "the Rich" need to give it all away to charity but it is in their vested interest that the less fortunate have enough. The "I got mine, screw you" is just a rehashed "let them eat cake" is it not. And look what happened to her.

When the few own too much, in the vein of megacorporations, doesn't it tend to stifle competition and raise the barrier to entry for smaller companies?

There are too many people living in poverty on this Earth to say that we live in a civilized age.

Oh and that thing about the $10 stock being sold to someone else for $20 - nobody loses money unless the stock goes below $20 right? Sometimes the stock genuinely does represent value and sometimes it is almost like a pyramid scheme. There are too many people involved in just shuffling money around and calling it work.

And that's all I have to say about that. Have a chocolate? :)

[Smersh]

Have you ever met an immortal? I never have. News flash: ALL people die.you have no problem with genocide then? you honestly disgust me, with your colonialist thinking. I'm not going to take time to responst to your facist-nazi-imperialist ideas about human progress.

Look closely,these are the kind of people defending the exploititve monoplolist-capitalist system.