America's 1% Has Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

The labour theory of value has been conclusively debunked.

 

They are all in old folks homes or have been thrown into the street as homeless beggars
They are considered bloodless and are useless eaters. To the 1% who are Filthy Parasites
.......................................................................................................................................................... They don't even count



............................................................................................................................. Capitalism is:
......................
............................................................................................................... & if you think it's your friend you
................................................................................................................are in for a Rude Awakening

 

Gosh .. well, thank goodness we have Socialists like you to show us how to avoid supporting the Capitalist system! Lucky you're actively living contrary to the Capitalist model of profit and the buying/selling of labour! Sure glad you don't rent property, or work for a wage, or buy your food, utilities, clothes, and entertainments!

 

Take a look at Uncle Joe and Uncle Mao, two figures lauded by the Western Left.
These two guys owned 100% of the nation's wealth. The richest American, Mr
Rockefeller "owned" 2% of America's wealth.

 

In the Communist system we all sit on the floor, and Dear Leader sits on a gilded throne.
Dear Leader has life and death powers over all - something no Musk, Gates or Bezos
could dream of.
Without the Capitalist the worker doesn't get his $50.
As it is few Western lefties want to leave the West and go live in North Korea, Venezuela
or Cuba. They ought to be shifted there.

 

Allow me to explain to you why it has never been put in practice anywhere.

If you have an idea for a better widget, your motive is financial gain

See, it is the motive for financial gain that drives innovation.

A bunch of marxists sitting around whining about equality, what is their motivation?

There motivation is equality, but how does that translate into getting a better widget to market?

It's the excited business owners and leaders and managers that get a business up and running.

NOT a bunch of marxists sitting around on their intellectual butts whining about equality.

I am a liberal democrat, but I am NOT a communist. I am a liberal democrat because I believe business needs to be regulated, to be forced to pay it's lowest works a livable wage because without minimum wage laws, corporations will pay as little as they can get away with, and without unions to collectively bargain for employees, they can get away with a lot. I am a liberal democrat because I believe in a worker's right to collectively bargain for higher wages. I am liberal democrat because I recognize that an unregulated market tends to exploit workers. I am a liberal democrat because I believe that without a universal health care system, the private markets will disallow affordable health care to about 40% of society ( or whatever the percentage is ) and a believe that, under concept that we are a civilized society, health care should be a right ( and I will work until the day arrives when there is the 26th amendment, health care being a right, and the 27th amendment, passing the equal rights amendment).. Being a liberal democrat and being a capitalist are NOT incompatible. Lee Ioccoca, the former CEO of Chrysler, was a democrat. Many entrepeneurs and business leaders are democrats.

While I sympathize with the sentiments of Marxists, their concept of 'democratic worker syndicates' just doesn't work. It sounds nice, but the real world just doesn't work that way. I know this because I've owned businesses. What, I put up $100k to start a business? Why in holy hell would I give my business away to workers? If they want to put up capital, FINE, but one share gets one vote. Voting power in business is delegated to proportion of ownership. That is fair. There is NOTHING fair about abolishing private property. That being said, I do not believe in not paying anyone on the unskilled levels lower than what is needed to live. In San Diego, that is at least $15 an hour, but it's more like $20 an hour.

I resent any republican who implies democrats are communists. But I find republicans red bait us all day long every day of the week, every of he year, and it really gets old. Its one of the reasons I'm no longer a republican, because if I believed half of what they say about democrats, I'd still be a republican.

 

You ought to read the entirety of my post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...m-the-bottom-90.578574/page-8#post-1072115252

 

That arguably is only because of our culture. In another culture the interest may be to help solve a problem.
Not everyone works for money. My advice has always been if you can make a living doing what you love, do that. If you cannot go for where you can make the most money to make up for it.

There is a massive difference between one person making money and possibly employing some people to work for them and making maybe about seven to ten times what their workers make. ( that was pretty much what things were in the UK prior to Thatcherism) to a very few people making a lot of money while the lowest paid people in society who may be very hard workers are now earning less in real terms than they were in the 70's.

Research has shown that more equal societies have closer cohesion, less mental health problems and less crime. If you want to build a decent society you would make it as equal as was possible. Democracies are built on the premise of equality. That equality can be symbolised by the one vote for all rather than the 100 votes for one person and none for others we had prior to democracy. However Democracy demands more. Everyone has equal rights in a democracy and that requires if necessary government protecting minorities from the majority and ideally in a democracy everyone has an equal opportunity. Clearly unless you can have an equal start this is not possible. Research in the Uk several years ago illustrated that by 5 years of age the richest 5 year old was 1 year developmentally above the poorest. This was due to the money allowing them to feed their child well, give them educational opportunities and toys, themselves being better educated, less stress and so on.

Corporate Power and Monopolies which we have now do not work in a democracy because they demand the Government serve them not the people. As people understood after WW2 if Government does not put regulations on Capitalism it will undermine democracy. It did again in the 70's. Arguably for people who value democracy it needs to be Democratic Socialism as Capitalism without regulations destroys Democracy and opens the door for Corporate Power and Fascism.

I don't have problems with what you are saying there except possibly "Being a liberal democrat and being a capitalist are NOT incompatible"

We are now living under Neo Liberalism which arguably is not Capitalism. How you speak above was what Britain was like prior to Thatcher but it was called 'Social Democracy'....it would naturally lead to Democratic Socialism - or be taken over by Neo Liberalism which it was. What you say in that paragraph is nearer Democratic Socialism. Could be Social Democracy but as I have lived through the most wealthy stealing that and creating a new aristocracy in a society where the lowest 20% now have less in real terms than they did in the 70's, the next 20% are just about even, the next 20% have made a tiny improvement and only in the final 20% is there any substantial improvement and then that is almost all to the top 1%. Political Theorists are now talking about us moving into a new form of feudalism.

The Labout Party in the UK was intending on making it a law that when people wanted to sell their business they offered it first to the workers to buy. They would have contributed the loan if they chose to buy. Then all the workers would be in charge of the firm while they were working in it and make all the decisions. This would bring democracy to the workplace. It was also thought it would work in a far more constructive way, they would not want to put chemicals in the environment because they lived in it unlike their current boss who lives on the other side of the world. They also thought that when new machinery needed less workers they were more likely to choose to do less work than pay of half the workforce and then they thought as it would be in their community they would be likely to help that community with some of their gains. This of course is co-operatives which work very well where they have been set up.

I am not from the US. Of course you have a past of punishing people with that mindset and not allowing such political thinking. I doubt if anyone is wanting communism now. I think people are talking about Democratic Socialism and some Social Democracy.

 

I'm all for sound regulation, reducing the inequities in the market place, making economic life 'more equal' i.e, shrinking the income gaps between the rich and poor ( but not in absolute terms, that's nuts ) I"m all for collective bargaining, worker rights, 'more democracy' in the workplace ( but those with the most financial investment, must have the overriding say, it's only fair )
Remember, I'm a liberal democrat and all that that implies. What I'm arguing are against the 'worker syndicalism' of communism.

Also, 'studies show', I'm not convinced that supports an argument, I'd have to see the study, and read precisely what the conclusions are, and how that applies to the premises offered here.

Also, if person A contributes 45% of the capital for a business, and person B only contributes 5% of the capital, should person B's vote be equal to person A? I can see no path of logic that would assert that they should be equal. In a partnership, not a corporation, person B should have a say, but those who are risking the most deserve the greater say in the operation. In a corporation, a vote equals one share. It's based on fairness.

Where does the capital come from? Who decides what is produced? these are the unanswered questions I do not get from communists. If the decision to produce something is based 'democratically' and not an individual or individuals responding to a void in the market, that method will always be behind the eightball, globally speaking.

As for:
The Labout Party in the UK was intending on making it a law that when people wanted to sell their business they offered it first to the workers to buy. They would have contributed the loan if they chose to buy. Then all the workers would be in charge of the firm while they were working in it and make all the decisions.

That's a side argument. If societies deems this to be the law, then fine.

 

No idea what you are talking about here and it's relationship if any to anything I said.

Again not sure what point you are trying to put over and what reference it had to anything I said.

I am not sure why if you believe in a system which has been working in the West since at least WW2, you believe you are so unique, nor what you believe that implies which would have relevance to what I posted.

Yet you are the only person to raise such issues. We once had a poster here who claimed to have previously been a communist and whose main interest appeared to be condem it, seemingly working through and trying to confirm to himself he was riight. You appear to be doing something similar. I never mentioned anything to do with ' 'worker syndicalism' of communism'. Rather I pointed out that I do not think many people are interested in Communism.

It ought to be obvious. Where you have a more equal society people can identify with each other and frictions which exist in deeply unequal societies as the US is becoming do not exist. I can give a personal example. My daughter was taught by the media to hate paying taxes. However when Scotland was going for Independence she decided to read the White paper to get an idea of what things would be like. She discovered that a Scandanavian type of system was what was being suggested. She later said she had decided to vote for Independence having discovered that although she would be paying more taxes, this sort of system where everyone is entitled to basic needs would without question build up a more harmonious society for her children to inherit. She knew that this would require her paying more in taxes but from that point onward she has never understood why people have not wanted to pay more in taxes which are spent on improving society, on working for the needs of all because if you build a society like that, where peopel's basic and shared needs are met, you build a better society for all. This is the very thing which got the middle class in the 19th C interested in raising the standard of living of the poor. It happened when there was some degree of integration, when they lived near enough to be affected by the poor. They could see that it was in both their interests that the poor were helped out of their situation. What we have had since Neo Liberalism, since the 80's is the opposite. The creation of such inequality in Western Societies that the most rich live in their gated communities completely cut off in just about every way from the situation which others find themselves in. It has been a complete reversal of the gains which were made in European Societies to overcome feudalism and the 'slavery' of early capitalism and it came about not just because working people worked for this to change but because the Middle Class could see, as my daughter saw, that it is in everyone's interest that the people in general do not live in abject poverty and indeed this change avoided both communism and fascism. You would only need to put in a search to get more information if you do not believe the obvious reality I stated that more equal societies have better social cohesion, less mental health problems and less crime.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why-more-equality

In the co-op's which I was telling you the Labour Party was intending on supporting this situation does not arise.

I trust if you read above you will begin to get an idea of what was being spoken about.

It is a side argument to what you are arguing within yourself not to what my post was about nor to changes which could see a positive change to a situation which is creating massive inequality resulting in the destruction of democracy and a move towards fascism in Western Countries. I suspect you are involved in an argument within yourself rather than what others have written.

 

Hm, yes but the worker has no responsibility other than to turn up to work. Let's not go down that path too far!?

If the wealthy just paid their fair dues in tax I'd be happy...

 

I'm an egalitarian, but if that is construed to make EVERYONE equal, regardless to unequal contribution and unequal commensurate talent, that I'm against.

Egalitarianism (to my way of thinking ) means reversing the income inequality gap that is ever widening, means 'more equal' it does NOT mean 'everyone is the same' or 'equal in the absolute, regardless of commensurate talent and degree of contribution'.

I make that clarification for the many on the right who, when they see the word 'equality' they often kneejerk the 'making everyone equal is stupid' argument , as if 'equality' means that-- which, of course, it doesn't. See, it could easily be misinterpreted as that by the conservative members of this forum, which is why I make that clarification, for their eyes, not so much yours.

As for the other liberal minded items you declare you had no idea of what I was talking about, well, I included them because such liberal minded concepts are a component of egalitarianism -- inclusive of, in my opinion.

I'm injecting the above because you didn't make it absolutely clear what you meant by 'equality' all you stated was that 'studies show that life would be better off with it". That being said, you did allude to a 'Scandinavian system".

If you are saying 'equality' is essentially the netherlands model, i.e., the 'Scandinavian system' that we've moved in the opposite direct with the neoliberalism established by Reagan, and more or less continued by every administration since then, then I agree wholeheartedly, and everything I wrote is compatible with it.

And, for conservative eyes, when they see such writing as you are writing, as is written in this post, they often will kneejerk 'so you are saying to replace capitalism with socialism'. no, I am not saying that, nor do I think you are saying that, either, right? So I put that in there for the conservatives on this forum who might misinterpret this writing, as they often do.

 

I suspect your idea of "fascism" differs from that of other people. You might need to explain
how "fascism" is growing in nations like England, Canada, Australia, Germany etc..
Frankly, I don't see it. There's plenty of red and white fascism in nations like Russia and China.

 

I don't think so. I am pretty aware of such things having studied Political Theories during my degree. The people who have the different ideas are those who do not want to see/admit to what they are working for/supporting.

 

Well, what is your definition of "fascism" ?

 

Whose theories? Rich old white men?

Or Confucius?

 

Maybe if your research is limited to a certain demographic - with zero external comparisons. Proper, broad (as in the entirety of humanity) research shows something different. It shows that culture is the key factor in "closer cohesion, less mental illness, and less crime", not equality or wealth.

Those 5 year olds lagging behind are lagging due to failure of parents to motivate for learning. That has nothing to do with money, it's a freely made behavioural choice. Consider the success of Asians in education. That has always been a reality, yet the vast majority of wealthy Asians were only created in very recent decades. Consider the Indo-Chinese refugees who made it to the West in the 1970s. Some couldn't even read or write, as they were very poor peasants. Yet many made sure their kids exploited the free education on offer, and so left poverty behind within a single generation.

 

Three prejudices in one.

 

Thank you. Sadly many people here will take offense on behalf of millionaires and billionaires.

 

It was designed to point out that the Marxist BS which makes its way into 'political theory' is the product of rich old white men

 

You are a guy after my own heart. Often I use sarcasm and people don't pick it up -
just like I did with this one.

 

And that trillion dollars "taken" gets ploughed back into the economy.
No rich guy is going to buy a trillion dollars in food or classic cars - but
even if he did, it would STILL just recycle through the economy and
make some restaurateurs rich and the classic car market boom.

 

Cool. And just FTR, I'm not a guy

 

Golly Gee CRANK

As World Plunges Into Poverty, Super Rich Top
Unprecedented $10 Trillion Net Worth Thanks to COVID-19
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/super-rich-unprecedented-wealth-thanks-covid-19/
&
America's Humongous Wealth Gap Is Widening Even Further
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrod...-wealth-gap-is-widening-further/#f23f66742ee1

Maybe it might be advisable to Listen to Reason
instead of the Dictates of a Fast Failing Greed Driven Ideology

.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,............................,,,,,,...........,,,,,,,,,..

...... ....... So which do YOU want - Yah CRANK ............... ?
..... ..............................................

.

 

Show us where that's true? I follow the job boards alot, where minimum wage is $7.25 an hour even mcdonald's in some places are starting workers off at $3 bucks more .