Wealth inequality in the USA.

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby cartervj » Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:28 pm

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/fascism-a-socialist-leftwing-ideology-communism-fascism-labor-unions-workers-and-students-exploiting-crisis/


Fascism A Socialist Leftwing Ideology: Communism, Fascism, Labor Unions, Workers And Students Exploiting ‘Crisis’
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927

As I have frequently contended, the fascism of the Nazis (as well as “fascism” in general) was a species of socialism – and socialism, as the belief that a giant government should usurp power to itself and take from individuals to give to other individuals, is inherently leftist. [Here is a longer article another author has written detailing the inherent leftism of fascism and of Hitler].

This is important to understand as we see history repeating itself (“Deja vu all over again!”).

Gene Edward Veith, Jr. pointed out many of the elements that communism and fascism held in common:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were "revolutionary socialist ideologies." Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL


Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:45 pm

Glimmerjim wrote: .....By it's very nature, combined with the contemporary methods of politics, unbridled capitalism will always result in oligarchic, plutocratic societies.....

I disagree. True unbridled capitalism is the only thing that can prevent what you have described. If we did have true unbridled capitalisim I could hang a shingle on my front door and use my house to load and sell ammo cheaper and of higher quality than can be bought at Walmart, and my wife could serve real meals to paying customers at costs that McDonald's couldn't touch.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:48 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote: .....By it's very nature, combined with the contemporary methods of politics, unbridled capitalism will always result in oligarchic, plutocratic societies.....

I disagree. True unbridled capitalism is the only thing that can prevent what you have described. If we did have true unbridled capitalisim I could hang a shingle on my front door and use my house to load and sell ammo cheaper and of higher quality than can be bought at Walmart, and my wife could serve real meals to paying customers at costs that McDonald's couldn't touch.

Which is one reason that I specified "with the contemporary methods of politics", cd. Those in positions of power and wealth, ignoring for the moment Spinner's accurate take on wealth vs income, control the political process which insures their ability to advance their positions at the expense of those bereft of the advantages of wealth and power. When I state "unbridled", I refer to those steps taken and endorsed by our political system , that place control of those making the rules in the hands of the "wealthy".
Now I am frankly unclear as to what you refer to as your inability to manufacture and sell a product from your home, or one that prohibits a person from running a "bed and breakfast" or something similar from their home. Obviously there has to be oversight on these endeavors. I can envision a situation of road kill being served as filet mignon, just as easily as I can imagine a line of children's toys being manufactured in the garage painted with lead paint. There has to be oversight of those dealing with the public. Also there are zoning restrictions. I am not sure about you, but personally I am not sure that I would appreciate a steady stream of traffic on my residential street in line to purchase wooden train sets painted with lead based paint,nor would I be comfortable living next to a residence that sells "roach coach" foods with free shots of tequila 24/7.
That is not the "unbridled" to which I refer. My vision of unbridled capitalism is more akin to the concept of a monopoly, which, once obtained, disallows the concept of free-market competitiveness.
In other words, I believe in the necessity of regulations for a myriad of reasons, yet I do not believe in the ability of the few to create, at the expense of many, a system skewed towards their ability to create conditions most favorable to themselves, rather than a system that attempts to level all playing fields. This would not hamper the advantage of those who have the wherewithal to produce and prosper, it would simply enable others to do the same who have the same ambition, but not the same stature or political savvy and persuasiveness at this point in time
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:35 pm

Our definitions of the term are where we differ. I would consider your definition as chrony capitalism, not unbridled capitalism. The regulations and other government interventions as far a zoning and so forth is exactly what I'm talking about. They are not conductive to true "unbridled" capitalism. If I own property, or am even renting property (with no objections from said owner) why should anyone have the ability to impede the production and or sale of goods and services. People still get salmonella poisoning from products produced from regulated businesses, and we still get poisonous toys from China. Good business practice in a true free market economy is what keeps businesses in business. If you go to a Mexican restaurant and get sick you aren't going to go back, and if it happens to more people, everyone in town knows about it in a hurry. It's really no different than if I got a bad sandwich that I bought from my neighbor.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:07 pm

clampdaddy wrote:Our definitions of the term are where we differ. I would consider your definition as chrony capitalism, not unbridled capitalism. The regulations and other government interventions as far a zoning and so forth is exactly what I'm talking about. They are not conductive to true "unbridled" capitalism. If I own property, or am even renting property (with no objections from said owner) why should anyone have the ability to impede the production and or sale of goods and services. People still get salmonella poisoning from products produced from regulated businesses, and we still get poisonous toys from China. Good business practice in a true free market economy is what keeps businesses in business. If you go to a Mexican restaurant and get sick you aren't going to go back, and if it happens to more people, everyone in town knows about it in a hurry. It's really no different than if I got a bad sandwich that I bought from my neighbor.

You should go read "Lord of the Flies"
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:20 pm

You should go read Atlas Shrugged.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:20 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:24 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no regulations
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:30 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no morality

Fixed it for you. Ugly schit happens with regulations because regulations can be drafted with the intent on ugly schit happening.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:17 am

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no morality

Fixed it for you. Ugly schit happens with regulations because regulations can be drafted with the intent on ugly schit happening.

OK, seriously now. You actually believe that the absence of regulations will guarantee a fair and equitable outcome? Do you think a foot ball game would be better with no referees simply because they might become corrupted and biased? Because that's pretty much your argument, CD
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:48 am

On an interesting side note, we (and I think most kids) played pick up baseball, basketball, and football games for our entire youth. With no referees or umpires. And guess what? It worked out just fine.

And will you PLEASE stop using "fair" as a qualifier? It simply means nothing useful. Nothing.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:50 am

The free market is NOT anarchy. It is not zero government. In the free market there are charities, co-ops, collectives, unions, non-union competition, ... You are free. Free to be stupid and free to be brilliant. Free to not follow the fools and free to do so if you want.

Glimmerjim wrote:As this inevitable condition evolves into a caste system
Just because you think you would be in the lowest of the low caste if you lived in a free society, but the vast majority of people are far better off in free society where no one can force people to buy or sell anything and the government defends their right to do that.

What is the tried and true remedy for inoperable disproportionate wealth distribition other than a pretense of taxation remedies?
The only place where there is inoperable disproportionate wealth distribution is where there is an inoperable disproportionate government treatment distribution. Where there is still reasonable government, the wealth distribution among the young and old is quite large because there is great value in working smart and hard. In places where working doesn't pay, the wealth distribution between the young and old does not change nearly as much. Either you are born with wealth or you are born without and there is nothing you can do to change that.

Your anaswer

Unions.
How did that work out in heavily unionized Detroit? It's easy to show where this fails. Unions often remove the incentive to work smart and had because it has no impact on your pay or future prospects. So young adults get stuck, sure making a little more when they are 20 than they would have, but making far less at 50 than they otherwise would have. If you double the pay for flipping burgers, how many more people would still be flipping burgers and living at 50 like they did when they thought they were making the big bucks as a teenager?

Then look at heavily unionize Europe. They are so dramatically poorer than we are it is ridiculous. Again, there is less spread in the wealth after working a lifetime because there is vastly less incentive to work. So everybody has to live with a hell of a lot less.

It won't completely alleviate the ludicrous distribution of, not wealth, but comfortable, respectable living conditions
to the majority of the population.
Another insanity. Who cannot live comfortably in America if they live with in their means. Could an average Americans in the 50's, 60's, 70's, live comfortably? My comfort is not impacted in any why by your wealth or lack there off. All you are arguing for is a nationwide imposition of a keeping up with the Jones imposed by law. Trying to keep up with the Jones is how individuals go broke and it will drive the entire nation broke if that is what is imposed.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16115
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:17 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no morality

Fixed it for you. Ugly schit happens with regulations because regulations can be drafted with the intent on ugly schit happening.

OK, seriously now. You actually believe that the absence of regulations will guarantee a fair and equitable outcome? Do you think a foot ball game would be better with no referees simply because they might become corrupted and biased? Because that's pretty much your argument, CD


No. When you brought up the lord of the flies you introduced a dynamic that was not part of the previous discussion. There were rules on the island. Godlessness led to a breakdown in morality, rules were thrown to the wayside, paganism takes place, Piggy dies. As Assa pointed out, Atlas Shrugged is far more pertinent to the conversation at hand. Jim and I were talking about the term "unbridled capitalism". Not lawlessness, but the freedom to prosper without a government deck that is stacked against the little guy.

When the refs are afforded percs and privileges from the teams, then yes, you'd have a more fair game with no refs at all.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:48 am

assateague wrote:On an interesting side note, we (and I think most kids) played pick up baseball, basketball, and football games for our entire youth. With no referees or umpires. And guess what? It worked out just fine.

And will you PLEASE stop using "fair" as a qualifier? It simply means nothing useful. Nothing.

The concept of fairness is the only reason we have rules in the first place
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:51 am

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no morality

Fixed it for you. Ugly schit happens with regulations because regulations can be drafted with the intent on ugly schit happening.

OK, seriously now. You actually believe that the absence of regulations will guarantee a fair and equitable outcome? Do you think a foot ball game would be better with no referees simply because they might become corrupted and biased? Because that's pretty much your argument, CD


No. When you brought up the lord of the flies you introduced a dynamic that was not part of the previous discussion. There were rules on the island. Godlessness led to a breakdown in morality, rules were thrown to the wayside, paganism takes place, Piggy dies. As Assa pointed out, Atlas Shrugged is far more pertinent to the conversation at hand. Jim and I were talking about the term "unbridled capitalism". Not lawlessness, but the freedom to prosper without a government deck that is stacked against the little guy.

When the refs are afforded percs and privileges from the teams, then yes, you'd have a more fair game with no refs at all.

Refs are, from time to time. SOmetimes the fix is in. I'm asking if you think that the chance of corruption is worth ditching the rules all together. Shall we ditch the police force too, and the military. They get corrupted from time to time as well. You're proposing a fantasy
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:11 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no morality

Fixed it for you. Ugly schit happens with regulations because regulations can be drafted with the intent on ugly schit happening.

OK, seriously now. You actually believe that the absence of regulations will guarantee a fair and equitable outcome? Do you think a foot ball game would be better with no referees simply because they might become corrupted and biased? Because that's pretty much your argument, CD


No. When you brought up the lord of the flies you introduced a dynamic that was not part of the previous discussion. There were rules on the island. Godlessness led to a breakdown in morality, rules were thrown to the wayside, paganism takes place, Piggy dies. As Assa pointed out, Atlas Shrugged is far more pertinent to the conversation at hand. Jim and I were talking about the term "unbridled capitalism". Not lawlessness, but the freedom to prosper without a government deck that is stacked against the little guy.

When the refs are afforded percs and privileges from the teams, then yes, you'd have a more fair game with no refs at all.

Refs are, from time to time. SOmetimes the fix is in. I'm asking if you think that the chance of corruption is worth ditching the rules all together. Shall we ditch the police force too, and the military. They get corrupted from time to time as well. You're proposing a fantasy


No, you are warping the original scenario. Nobody is talking about a free for all, anarchy type situation. We are talking about what true unbridaled capitalism is. There's a big difference between saying BDD2 can freely make and sell as many fishing lures as he can out of his garage without having to jump through government hoops, and saying that BDD2 can freely run the streets, raping and pillaging as he sees fit.

Again, Atlas Shrugged not Lord of the Flies. You're trying to say that cricket and baseball are the same game because someone throws a ball and someone swings a bat.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:47 pm

I am saying that without rules and regulations in the marketplace that you will quickly arrive at the economic equivalent of "LotF". Which would a basically feudalist oligarchy, just like Jim originally (and correctly) asserted. Nothing more, nothing less
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:53 pm

The business world IS at the point of oligarchy. Don't think so? See who's been exempted from Obamacare. Examples like this are not results of "unbridled" capitalism, it is a result of "crony" capitalism.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3626
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:02 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:04 pm

assateague wrote:You should go read Atlas Shrugged.

I have, several times, AT. I find it sophomoric and appalling in the concepts it promotes.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:11 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote: You should go read "Lord of the Flies"

Who the hell gave you the conch?!

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
but seriously.........ugly schit happens with no morality

Fixed it for you. Ugly schit happens with regulations because regulations can be drafted with the intent on ugly schit happening.

That is true, cd, but which method is more within our ability to control, instilling virtue and benevolence in the populous, or, attempting to regulate the ease with with those who do not possess these attributes can prosper at the expense of others?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:16 pm

clampdaddy wrote:Again, Atlas Shrugged not Lord of the Flies. You're trying to say that cricket and baseball are the same game because someone throws a ball and someone swings a bat.

Jeez cd, are you wasted again? Baseball is a sport, cricket is an insect! :lol3: By the way....what does the new smiley represent? It looks like a flabby breast being forced into a small bra to me!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:23 pm

assateague wrote:On an interesting side note, we (and I think most kids) played pick up baseball, basketball, and football games for our entire youth. With no referees or umpires. And guess what? It worked out just fine.

And will you PLEASE stop using "fair" as a qualifier? It simply means nothing useful. Nothing.

I understand your point, AT, but what other word expresses a situation in which there are no inherent discrepancies that allow one "competitor" an advantage in a competitive endeavor? A footrace in which the winner takes all the possessions of the loser between Jesse Owens and a 79 year old man with a walker is not............um......I give up. Not what?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:27 pm

assateague wrote:On an interesting side note, we (and I think most kids) played pick up baseball, basketball, and football games for our entire youth. With no referees or umpires. And guess what? It worked out just fine.


Would it have worked out just fine if the benefits of winning were a lifetime of comfort and opulence, and the result of losing was a lifetime of poverty and struggle with little possibility of upward progression? Assuming these kids had the intellectual maturity to understand the ramifications of the differences.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:39 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: My comfort is not impacted in any why by your wealth or lack there off. All you are arguing for is a nationwide imposition of a keeping up with the Jones imposed by law.

?!?!?! Your "comfort is not impacted in any way by my (sic) wealth or lack thereof?" When the system is absolutely controlled by those of wealth and power (virtually synonymous terms) My power can and does absolutely and inarguably affect your comfort level. In simple terms, if I am in a position to dictate your wage scale to my advantage and the entire system is infected with this ability of the few to control the many, it most assuredly impacts your comfort level. If I can keep you on a subsistence level, in order to provide myself with the power to reap the benefits of your labors to such a degree that I crap on gold toilets and you crap in the gutter, I believe that can be construed as my wealth and power controlling your comfort level.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10833
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests