isn't there something fundamentally wrong?

[TakeYouToTasker]

why? it was almost 1700 years AD before hobbes imagined his "law of nature". disregarding the rference to the bible, that's 10s of thousands of years of human history before we have recorded evidence of such a philosophy. how long were humans thinking about ways to rule and govern beforer aristotle and socrates? why would 300 or 3000 years for a new similar landmark philosophy to be put forth seem long?

They weren't thinking about governing, and the accompanying philosophies. They were thinking about food and shelter. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and all that.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that opposing legislation which is failing spectacularly constitutes social darwinism.

 

Because only a select few Obama knob-gobblers believe Obamacare can still work, and they're running out of arguments.

 

There was never a time I would have believed that this abortion was SO bad it would collapse under its own weight, but today I genuinely believe it may repeal itself simply because of how poorly it was thought out. The progressives put into office are too afraid of losing their cush job over this...and they're lining up in droves against it. People who refer to 1%ers now are referring to the very few people who believe Obamacare is worth blindly defending.

[Nanker]

 

 

"It seems obvious to me now--though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion--that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free-and-equalness that Marx hyped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market." - Max Eastman

Actually it was Louis Henry Morgan who first saw that. Marx and Engals we're impressed with his work.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Actually it was Louis Henry Morgan who first saw that. Marx and Engals we're impressed with his work.

I would say that while Marx was actually the first to clearly define it; he certainly piggy-backed onto the work of Morgan. Still, I won't quibble.

[OCinBuffalo]

yes, because the only alternative to massive wealth inequality is a monarchy...

there were other political philosophers than locke and hobbes with other ideas. why are you so certain they are the most correct or were correct at all? perhaps the most efficient system has not been imagined or tried yet.

 

yes, it's abominable but so are many americans. many are positively darwinian til they fall on hard times. then their thinking tends to change.

OBAMACARE!

 

(See, it's already working! All I have to do is invoke Obamacare, and the whole darwin = "we have to do something" argument falls apart. Why? Because the something they will do, if allowed? OBAMACARE! This is why we need reasonable adults, not progressive children, in charge of solving problems.)

One would imagine that over a span of that three hundred years, that efficient system would have been imagined and put to test. How many failings does marxism need to demonstrate for the true believers to recognize it goes against human nature?

You forgot excuse #1, and quite possibly the most racist political statement that there is, that they state publicly all the time without OUTRAGE!:

 

"If communism/socialism was implemented in the West, by educated people, in countries with educated people and a cultural work ethic, it would work!"

 

This of course means that sole reason it has failed, is because it's been implemented by non-whites, and "the slavs".

 

See? It's the most racist thing you could possibly say: but, do your google. You'll see it said, or some variation of it said, more than a few times.

[DC Tom]

yes, because the only alternative to massive wealth inequality is a monarchy...

 

Given that the president is legislating by edict from the podium, apparently it is.

[birdog1960]

OBAMACARE!

 

(See, it's already working! All I have to do is invoke Obamacare, and the whole darwin = "we have to do something" argument falls apart. Why? Because the something they will do, if allowed? OBAMACARE! This is why we need reasonable adults, not progressive children, in charge of solving problems.)

 

You forgot excuse #1, and quite possibly the most racist political statement that there is, that they state publicly all the time without OUTRAGE!:

 

"If communism/socialism was implemented in the West, by educated people, in countries with educated people and a cultural work ethic, it would work!"

 

This of course means that sole reason it has failed, is because it's been implemented by non-whites, and "the slavs".

 

See? It's the most racist thing you could possibly say: but, do your google. You'll see it said, or some variation of it said, more than a few times.

and we're right back to dualist thinking: there are possibilities besides full blown socialism and the corporatocracy we currently have in the us. did anyone notice the plan citibank spent $100 million formulating in case of that so very unlikely default that so many of you were not worried about occurred? seems they were worried. they were planning on paying social security benefits to customers even though their legal dept had great reservations on the legality. does this plan not bother anyone? how bout the banks recent $80 billion fine to the gov't for mortgage backed securities? not a single corporate exec is even threatened with jail. Do you suppose the police would look the other way when a teenager pays back the cost of the tv he stole from walmart years ago.

 

perhaps between where we are and socialism would be a system where there was no private campaign finance. Term limits. making it forbidden for ex legislators to become lobbyists. making it illegal for private entities to write entire or a majority of pieces of legislation. taxing cap gains like ordinary income. and i'm sure over time people could think of many more ways to decrease the influence of business over our leaders and system while making the needs of the citizeny of paramount importance.

Edited November 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

and we're right back to dualist thinking: there are possibilities besides full blown socialism and the corporatocracy we currently have in the us.

An argument started by Mises.

 

did anyone notice the plan citibank spent $100 million formulating in case of that so very unlikely default that so many of you were not worried about? seems they were worried. they were planning on paying social security benefits to customers even though there legal dept had great reservations on the legality.

Major finance houses weren't worried; they were planning, as they always do, for any reasonable outcome. That's how they got to be major finance houses. This is nothing more than further evidence that you don't understand business, finance, and accounting.

 

does this plan not bother anyone?

Why should it?

 

how bout the banks recent $80 billion fine to the gov't for mortgage backed securities? not a single corporate exec is even threatened with jail. Do you suppose the police would look the other way when a teenager pays back the cost of the tv he stole from walmart years ago.

Why should any impartial observer be suprised that the power structure that created the problem absolved itself of all blame, and then pinned a show-pony tail on the private sector, who did nothing more than not only play by the rules, but played by the spirit of the rules put in place.

 

perhaps between where we are and socialism would be a system where their was no private campaign finance.

You're aware that the RNC and DNC are private entities, correct?

 

Term limits.

Agree.

 

making it forbidden for ex legislators to become lobbyists.

What do you propose they do with themselves for the remainder of their working years? You've just decided that they can't stay in office, and now you want to keep them out of the private sector as well? You're talking about individuals who have connections and influence; and those are both commodities. They will always be sold. Pushing them further out of the disinfecting light only makes things worse.

 

making it illegal for private entities to write entire or a majority of pieces of legislation.

So, you are proposing that people without intimate understanding of the industries they are regulating, and with little legislative experience (given your term limits edict), write the comprehensive governing laws? Brilliant. I can't think of a single thing that could possibly go wrong.

 

taxing cap gains like ordinary income.

Do away with our current graduated tax system, and we can talk.

 

and i'm sure over time people could think of many more ways to decrease the influence of business over are leaders and system while making the needs of the citizeny of paramount importance.

It amazes me that you believe the needs of business and of individuals are that divergent.

[GG]

how bout the banks recent $80 billion fine to the gov't for mortgage backed securities? not a single corporate exec is even threatened with jail. Do you suppose the police would look the other way when a teenager pays back the cost of the tv he stole from walmart years ago.

 

That fine you're referring to is straight out of the business manual penned by the cosa nostra. You shouldn't be proud of anything regarding those "settlements" If the bankers had done something illegal, they most certainly be tried court by now.

 

Why hasn't the outraged class come to grips with the basic fact that after 6 years and tens of millions of dollars of investigations into the sub-prime dealings, there were so few indictments? It's most certainly not because of the cost nature between Wall Street & DC, but because of the tiny matter that very few people at the banks broke laws. If you want to prosecute somebody, go after the thousands of mortgage brokers who disappeared into the wild.

 

If you want a further example of why wealth distribution doesn't work - look at subprime which was a classic case of private sector wealth distribution. But that wealth distribution came with a catch, you needed to be responsible with the debt that you took on that boosted your paper wealth. That grand experiment proved that many people are simply not good when trusted with a lot of money. Because that's what you are really mad at, the evil bankers gave people money that they couldn't repay if housing values didn't continue rising. So whose fault is that?

 

So, you are proposing that people without intimate understanding of the industries they are regulating, and with little legislative experience (given your term limits edict), write the comprehensive governing laws? Brilliant. I can't think of a single thing that could possibly go wrong.

 

Why not? Worked fine for Elizabeth Warren.

[birdog1960]

if there truly wasn't criminal activity involved (and i don't believe it) it's likely because the banks wrote the laws! this is undisputed in regards to a recent major piece of financial legislation. i'm proposing that we not let the fox "protect" the hen house. if there is no other way for the system to craft legislation, then that supports my point that the system is fundamentally flawed. and for all those crowing (heavy on the animal metaphors this am., i know)about wealth redistribution plans, the data supports that contention but the wealth is further being redistributed from everyone else to the very wealthy and not the other way around. and watch what happens when the current market bubble blows.

Edited November 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[GG]

if there truly wasn't criminal activity involved (and i don't believe it) it's likely because the banks wrote the laws! this is undisputed in regards to a recent major piece of financial legislation. i'm proposing that we not let the fox "protect" the hen house. if there is no other way for the system to craft legislation, then that supports my point that the system is fundamentally flawed. and for all those crowing (heavy on the animal metaphors this am., i know)about wealth redistribution plans, the data supports that contention but the wealth is further being redistributed from everyone else to the very wealthy and not the other way around. and watch what happens when the current market bubble blows.

 

Exhibit I why clueless people shouldn't be writing legislation on an industry they're clueless about. Thanks for channeling Matt Taibbi, because I'm certain that after reading about sub-prime shenanigans for one month you're an equal expert on global finance. And congratulations on still not getting the difference between wages, income and net worth, and using them interchangeably in your discussion.

 

If the stock market bubble bursts, wealth inequality will shrink because the recent stock market gains have exacerbated the inequality. But I'm sure you knew that. Of course you also recognize that another bursting of a government aided asset bubble would be a bad thing for the regular joes & janes. Yet the inequality would decrease. Now how can that be if inequality is the biggest problem in your view?

[birdog1960]

Exhibit I why clueless people shouldn't be writing legislation on an industry they're clueless about. Thanks for channeling Matt Taibbi, because I'm certain that after reading about sub-prime shenanigans for one month you're an equal expert on global finance. And congratulations on still not getting the difference between wages, income and net worth, and using them interchangeably in your discussion.

 

If the stock market bubble bursts, wealth inequality will shrink because the recent stock market gains have exacerbated the inequality. But I'm sure you knew that. Of course you also recognize that another bursting of a government aided asset bubble would be a bad thing for the regular joes & janes. Yet the inequality would decrease. Now how can that be if inequality is the biggest problem in your view?

because access to information and ability to make nanosecond trades is not equal for the haves and have nots.

[GG]

because access to information and ability to make nanosecond trades is not equal for the haves and have nots.

 

Should you have the same access to manufacture an airplane as Boeing?

[TakeYouToTasker]

because access to information and ability to make nanosecond trades is not equal for the haves and have nots.

So, you're advocating equality of outcome?

[Jauronimo]

because access to information and ability to make nanosecond trades is not equal for the haves and have nots.

Computerized trades and access to public information is driving wealth inequality?!?!? Thats absurd. Wealthy folks* don't have algorithms and their own custom computerized trading systems either. Big investment houses use these tools to execute trades for many of their funds. The have nots still have access to mutual funds and IRAs right? Might these vehicles leverage their access to information and ability to execute rapid trades for the benefit of all folks?

 

The biggest driver of wealth inequality was the housing market crash. Lower income folks had a disproportionate amount of their net wealth wrapped up in the value of their home. Often due to the fact that lower class and middle class folks lever up pretty well to buy homes at the upper range of what they can possibly borrow. These folks had extreme exposure to housing market risk and paid dearly. Wealthier folks have more diversified portfolios. They took a big hit when homes values plummeted as well. The luxury market was decimated and took years to recover.

 

Unlike lower and middle class folks, wealthy folks weren't forced out of their homes so they benefited from both the recovering housing market and recent equity gains. You don't need your own private wealth adviser to tell you the perils of having all your eggs in one basket. Wealth inequality explained, folks.

 

The quickest way to close the gap would be to promote employment growth and then encourage these working folks to save some of their paycheck, and not just save but invest so that their money will work for them. Once these folks have exposure to the unlimited upside of equity markets they might just see some real returns. You can't achieve equality purely by taking from the rich folks, you need to create opportunity for the disadvantaged folks and incentivize the behavior I just described.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jauronimo

[DC Tom]

Computerized trades and access to public information is driving wealth inequality?!?!? Thats absurd. Wealthy folks* don't have algorithms and their own custom computerized trading systems either. Big investment houses use these tools to execute trades for many of their funds. The have nots still have access to mutual funds and IRAs right? Might these vehicles leverage their access to information and ability to execute rapid trades for the benefit of all folks?

 

The biggest driver of wealth inequality was the housing market crash. Lower income folks had a disproportionate amount of their net wealth wrapped up in the value of their home. Often due to the fact that lower class and middle class folks lever up pretty well to buy homes at the upper range of what they can possibly borrow. These folks had extreme exposure to housing market risk and paid dearly. Wealthier folks have more diversified portfolios. They took a big hit when homes values plummeted as well. The luxury market was decimated and took years to recover.

 

Unlike lower and middle class folks, wealthy folks weren't forced out of their homes so they benefited from both the recovering housing market and recent equity gains. You don't need your own private wealth adviser to tell you the perils of having all your eggs in one basket. Wealth inequality explained, folks.

 

I thought he was pointing out that computerized trading creates wealth inequality.

 

Which leads to people not being able to pay back money they borrow.

 

Or something.

 

if there truly wasn't criminal activity involved (and i don't believe it) it's likely because the banks wrote the laws!

 

So can you tell us precisely what laws you believe were broken in this criminal activity?

 

Oh, that's right - the laws are wrong, because the banks wrote them. Can you tell us precisely what non-existent laws were broken by this activity which would be criminal if the non-existent laws existed?

 

Retard.

[birdog1960]

Should you have the same access to manufacture an airplane as Boeing?

huh? the point is that a burst bubble is likely to further enrich the rich. we had this discussion when romney was running and as i recall, no one contested the fact that he had a major advantage over the avg joe when it came to investments...that's how he amde18% or so in the middle of a market crash. are you now saying that's not likely to happen again? you've conceded that the avg joe would be hurt badly by such a scenario. how do these things together not lead to more concentration of wealth at the top?

 

Computerized trades and access to public information is driving wealth inequality?!?!? Thats absurd. Wealthy folks* don't have algorithms and their own custom computerized trading systems either. Big investment houses use these tools to execute trades for many of their funds. The have nots still have access to mutual funds and IRAs right? Might these vehicles leverage their access to information and ability to execute rapid trades for the benefit of all folks?

 

The biggest driver of wealth inequality was the housing market crash. Lower income folks had a disproportionate amount of their net wealth wrapped up in the value of their home. Often due to the fact that lower class and middle class folks lever up pretty well to buy homes at the upper range of what they can possibly borrow. These folks had extreme exposure to housing market risk and paid dearly. Wealthier folks have more diversified portfolios. They took a big hit when homes values plummeted as well. The luxury market was decimated and took years to recover.

 

Unlike lower and middle class folks, wealthy folks weren't forced out of their homes so they benefited from both the recovering housing market and recent equity gains. You don't need your own private wealth adviser to tell you the perils of having all your eggs in one basket. Wealth inequality explained, folks.

 

The quickest way to close the gap would be to promote employment growth and then encourage these working folks to save some of their paycheck, and not just save but invest so that their money will work for them. Once these folks have exposure to the unlimited upside of equity markets they might just see some real returns. You can't achieve equality purely by taking from the rich folks, you need to create opportunity for the disadvantaged folks and incentivize the behavior I just described.

so how does a burst asset bubble not lead to more income equality assuming your reasoning to be correct? that's what the point of the comment about the bubble was initially referring to. but way to reduirect... Edited November 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[Jauronimo]

huh? the point is that a burst bubble is likely to further enrich the rich. we had this discussion when romney was running and as i recall, no one contested the fact that he had a major advantage over the avg joe when it came to investments...that's how he amde18% or so in the middle of a market crash. are you now saying that's not likely to happen again? you've conceded that the avg joe would be hurt badly by such a scenario. how do these things together not lead to more concentration of wealth at the top?

If the bubble bursts (that means equities as a group fall in value by more than 10%), and we've already established that poorer folks have little to no equity investments and we know the evil rich folks have billions and trillions invested in equities, how the !@#$ would the gap widen?

 

After a precipitous drop, however, there are usually prime buying opportunities which ANYONE can participate in. And once again, since the lower and middle class folks have little no equity investments, they largely do not benefit from these buying opportunities and thus the gap widens again.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jauronimo

[GG]

huh? the point is that a burst bubble is likely to further enrich the rich. we had this discussion when romney was running and as i recall, no one contested the fact that he had a major advantage over the avg joe when it came to investments...that's how he amde18% or so in the middle of a market crash. are you now saying that's not likely to happen again? you've conceded that the avg joe would be hurt badly by such a scenario. how do these things together not lead to more concentration of wealth at the top?

 

so how does a burst asset bubble not lead to more income equality assuming your reasoning to be correct? that's what the point of the comment about the bubble was initially referring to. but way to reduirect...

 

Thanks for the daily affirmation that you're clueless about this topic.

 

If you can't understand what the Indian just told you, there's very little hope in you ever getting it. You still can't tell the difference between income & wealth (or at least you don't differentiate the two in your points.)

 

Here's a quick summary. The main reason that WEALTH inequality has been rising is due to Bernanke-fueled stock market rise, which benefits the wealthy more than it benefits the poor. If the stock market crashes, it would affect the WEALTH of the rich more than it would affect the WEALTH of the poor. Ergo, WEALTH inequality would diminish, because the rich would lose a good chunk of their paper WEALTH.

 

But in the aftermath, people would recognize the truth about this craptastic economic recovery, and why the regular folks haven't seen their INCOMES rise, because the job market still sucks.

[birdog1960]

Thanks for the daily affirmation that you're clueless about this topic.

 

If you can't understand what the Indian just told you, there's very little hope in you ever getting it. You still can't tell the difference between income & wealth (or at least you don't differentiate the two in your points.)

 

Here's a quick summary. The main reason that WEALTH inequality has been rising is due to Bernanke-fueled stock market rise, which benefits the wealthy more than it benefits the poor. If the stock market crashes, it would affect the WEALTH of the rich more than it would affect the WEALTH of the poor. Ergo, WEALTH inequality would diminish, because the rich would lose a good chunk of their paper WEALTH.

 

But in the aftermath, people would recognize the truth about this craptastic economic recovery, and why the regular folks haven't seen their INCOMES rise, because the job market still sucks.

so you are saying that the wealthy won't find a way to make money out of a crash like they did last time? i'm saying that many will. and we're talking about a few, by definition, as a small minority that holds much of the wealth already. doesn't take much searching to find that historically, regular folks buy at tops and sell at bottoms way more than the 1%ers do. they more often buy at the bottom and sell at the top. coincidence? i don't think so.