Potential Alternatives to Capitalist system( Part 2)

OK, I'll bite on this comment because it is correct. But! Or rather, But!

Capitalism is simply a mechanism of any market-economy. In fact, market-economies could not exist without capitalism, and I need not enumerate the benefits (we all know them).

Still, in equal measure, when there exists - in a Capitalist Market Economy - Income Disparity that looks like this infographic below, something is very, very wrong:


So, who are the 10Percenters earning nearly half the income generated? They are all around us. In fact, a family of two where both parents earn the average salary of $55.8K are in that domain. The distribution of incomes looks like this (Income Tier meaning three tiers of "one third" each, I presume):


Which indicates that one-third of American households are earning about $24K a year. That's the Poverty Threshold for a family of four.

Something is very, very wrong in the distribution of income in the Greatest Country in the World.

 

The two guys were murdered by all the local landowners, just as each of the millions murdered by landowning are murdered by all the local landowners, and I gave you their names because you foolishly claimed I was "afraid" to give even one name. I am not going to keep giving names, sorry. I've already proved you wrong, as usual.

Private landownership deprives the landless of the opportunity to earn a living unless they meet the extortion demands of greedy, idle, privileged, landowning parasites. The ones who can't afford to meet those extortion demands are out of luck: unless government rescues them from the murderous greed of landowners, they starve to death or die of other poverty-related causes.

 

and does this prove that land owners naturally kill non land owners? If a man is killed for stealing a horse does this prove that property owning causes killing and that nothing should be owned?

 

if it was extortion 170 million Americans would not buy homes, and those who cant buy or don't want to simply rent which is what most young people do while saving to buy. 1+1=2

 

That is inherent in the nature of landowning: it removes people's liberty to support themselves, thus killing many of them by poverty unless government rescues them. Most people are of course productive enough to support parasitic landowners as well as themselves; but many are not productive enough, and those are the ones landowners murder.

A horse was not already there with no help from anyone. The land was. Others would not be at liberty to use the horse if its original owner had not raised it by their labor. Others WOULD be at liberty to use the land if there had never been an owner at all. Therefore, ownership of the horse does not deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have had. Ownership of the land DOES deprive people of the liberty to use it that they would otherwise have had.

You just have to find some way of not knowing those facts, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Readers are invited to observe your mental contortions.

 

Sure they would. Millions of people bought slaves, didn't they? Almost everyone who could afford a slave bought one, just as almost everyone who can afford land buys some. The reasons are similar: if you aren't a perpetrator, you're a victim.

And those who can't meet the extortion demands of the landowners, and are not rescued by government, are murdered. 1-1=0

 

and they were being expropriated when they bought slaves????????
and when we buy homes were are being expropriated or becoming the expropriators???
100% BSing and mixing apples and oranges

 

True - but does NYC really need another Trump Tower or Hotel?

Zoning laws allow PEOPLE to live in cities rather than cities be hollowed out of humanity by hotels and office buildings.

Zoning Laws are not all bad, they exist to protect the right of individuals to live in them ...
________________________

 

A history lesson will teach you that Capitalism was simply a market-economy mechanism that replaced "barter". It is neither inherently bad nor good, and either depend upon its usage by mankind.

Capitalism can do good, even if some prefer to point at it the finger-of-blame for all the ills and evils in this world.

It depends upon how capitalism is regulated - like a car, it needs speed limits and places where it should not be driven ...

 

Zoning laws reward people that are willing to 'do what it takes' to get a deal done. It's a recipe for corruption. Further, the public may not even agree with the zones which would prevent the market from shaping neighborhoods how people would like them to be shaped.

If the public shaped zones rather than bribes and 'connections,' I would be more inclined to give zones more credit. As they stand now, and from what I experienced working in DC, it favors corruption over the desires of the inhabitants of the neighborhoods.

 

Direct management of an economy within a Capitalist framework can be much more successful than Laisse Faire Capitalism, such examples include Franco's Spain, or China today.

 

The most Laisse Faire Capitalist continent is Africa by far, as a collective.

Sure, Mugabe's Zimbabwe implemented Communist style policies, and still failed hard.

But, many African countries with extreme Capitalism are in just as bad shape.

White countries have adopted mixed hybrid economies, including in the U.S.A, and have clearly achieved some good results.

 

Communism starves to death by taking too much, and Capitalism starves to death by giving too little.

Both systems are really indefensible.

 

I agree, the transgression (in order to make a quick megabuck) are legion.

But, that too, is something that is decided at the local ballot-box. Stay away from the box on voting day and we deserve the consequences.

Citizens certainly have rights, but they also have duties. And voting is one of them.

The US as one of the worst voting records in the world - see here: U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries.

On the list shown there, you'll find the US ranked ninth from the bottom. We have a tendency therefore to talk and even argue about "Democracy" but, in fact, we practice it very little ...
_______________________

 

This is true. Satisfied, content people tend to vote less often. There is probably a study out there somewhere articulating the relationship between quality of life and voter turnout.

 

Agreed, and statistically certified - see OECD Better Life Index - excerpt:

I still think it is worthwhile to get out and vote one's satisfaction or insatisfaction. Politicians must know the will of the people. We have an electoral system that remains sensitive to

If people die to protect our right to vote our governance, we should be prepared to make the effort to show we care. Simply showing up at elections because we are not satisfied nice better than not voting - but it remains a "negative vote". Polls are a kind of "customer satisfaction survey", for which the turnout matters.

IMHO ...
________
_______

 

You seem totally confused. It it my honor to help. Ever heard of East/West Germany, Cuba /Florida. China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty. Giving to little??? Capitalism require that you give the best jobs and best products possible in the entire world if you want to survive. If you doubt it trying being a capitalist with second rate jobs and products. Do you understand now?

 

voting about complex matters requires qualifications. What you want most of voters is that they pass a test to show they know what they are voting about. Would you want a doctor that did not pass a test?

 

it does not matter how many vote but how qualified those who vote are. Better 10 people who know the issues than a million who don't.

 

THE INCOME PUMP TO WEALTH

Nothing of the kind.

When "capitalism" is left unregulated - and America is a demonstrative case in point - a market-economy suffers from an agglomeration of companies at the top (1, 2,3 or 4), which is called Market Concentration. One company is a Monopoly, and 2 or more with complicit pricing between them are an Oligopoly. They reach pricing agreements (without ever direct contact) where one company is dominant and all the others in-line - thus assuring their Market Revenues. Competition is reduced to a minimum.

Combine both monopolies and oligopolies with weak Upper-Income taxation and a country endures a problem of Acute Income Disparity.

Definition of capitalism: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

Whether a market-economy is Monopolistic, or Oligopolistic or a Plurality of suppliers is relevant to customers who pay more for products in a Monopoly or an Oligopoly. (Btw, OPEC, which decides the price of gas at the pump, is an oligopoly.)

SURVIVAL

Where does capitalism promise "survival"? It doesn't, and two horrific economic failures (the Great Depression and the Great Recession) show exactly what unhindered "capitalism" can bring about - millions out of work, houses repossessed and even destroyed.

Yes, capitalism has its virtues. It is a lot better than barter, which was the medium of exchange the came before. But it remains a "medium of exchange", and whether good or bad depends upon its usage and (above all) regulation.

THE MARKET ECONOMY & SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES

The underlying principle/objective of a market-economy should be to assure that the most good is done for the most people. Both Communism and Socialism failed at that task. As does the US due to its Acute Income Disparity.

But Social Democracies have not. They have allowed electorates to chose governments the principal concern of which was the betterment/well-being of as many as possible and not select groups of plutocrats who manipulate voting preferences to get "their candidates elected".

In elections where their candidates are sold like Soap Powder, because they all "wash whiter than white".

ABOUT CAPITALISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES

For those interested, an interesting demonstration of the differences between the two political philosophies here: Capitalism vs. Socialism.

But remember, Capitalism is based upon a market-economy mechanism and Socialism is a political philosophy - as is Social Democracy. It is important to distinguish the two. Because Socialism wanted to do away with the market-economy and its "capitalism", whilst Social Democracies want simply to accommodate themselves to a capitalist market-economy.

Socialism/Communism came to a well-deserved end because neither understood Human Nature, that is those who are naturally more competent at spotting market needs and providing the means to meet those needs. Both made the mistake of dictating "needs".

OTOH, the US's version of "capitalism" has caused severe Income Disparity (as depicted here); which has become rampant in the US ever since Reckless Ronnie put down Upper-Income Tax Rates in the 1980s, and the US has become a Income-Pump for Wealthy Dynasties*.

Which is what this debate is all about ...

*Dynasties assure that wealth is handed down from generation to generation to generation, whilst most heirs never work a day in their lives to have earned it. We are back to where humanity was in the middle of the 18th century, and which resulted in the American Revolution.

 

You have a bizarre notion of what constitutes a "democracy".

Functional definition for your edification, from WikiP:

_______________________________

 

HUMAN GREED

Essentially correct. But the difference between Capitalist Democracies (example, the US), and Social Democracies (example the European Union) is that the former have rigged the market-economy (in multiple ways) to generate Income that is lightly taxed and moves quickly up to Wealth. Whilst the latter have certain societal principles, meaning that Income must be fair and equitably "distributed naturally" in a market-economy by means of progressive taxation up to and including 100%.

Both the Great Depression (1930s) and the Great Recession (2009) showed us that when we tinker with Income Taxation by lowering rates, we incur risk-ventures that are excessive and cause market disasters. The Great Depression has multiple theories as regards its causes. (If interested, have a look here.) By comparison, the cause of the Great Recession is more mundane.

Greedy appetites whetted by low upper-income taxation, some avaricious people (as in the 1920s) seeking a Quick-Kill took short-cuts that led to the SubPrime Mess that ultimately short-circuited Wall Street with its Toxic-Waste. (There are many theories proposed, I am keen on this one factually.)

The Great Recession, that caused unmitigated economic harm to a great many people around the world, resulted from Laissez-faire Capitalism. Which is the misguided idea that intelligent people will do intelligent things. That's true sometimes but not all times.

The simplicity of that notion forgets that greedy people with misguided ideas can do a lot of economic harm unless prevented from doing so. Which is what happened in 2009 when Wall Street almost collapsed from within.

Human greed will trump human honesty each and every time if allowed to do so ...
____________________

 

in fact, resulted from lib commie intervention in free market. At time of collapse Fanny Fredie held 74% of all Alt A and subprime mortgages. What does that teach you?

To deny massive socialist involvement in the free market as the cause when there were 132 different programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford is denial beyond the bounds of sanity that only a liberal could entertain. The soviet housing market failed for the same reason the soviet union failed.

 

actually Great Depression was caused by a drop in the money supply of 35%. This is what Bernanke did his PH.D on and what he used to prevent the 2008 housing recession from becoming a depression . Do you understand?

- - - Updated - - -

democracy is when intelligent people vote. This is why children don't vote and why adults as dumb as children should not be allowed to vote. Now do you understand?

 

China has massive direct management of the economy in numerous ways. In fact it owns many of the major industries. Isn't learning the ultra basics fun??