American Solidarity Fund - Redistribution to Fight Inequality

[Incredulity 11563]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The diminishing marginal utility of wealth is well-established.

If Joe Rich has $30M and you give him $1k, he's not going to do anything with it. It's going to sit in an account where it will move slowly between big funds in the financial sector. Joe Rich has no incentive to make that $1k go to work because it's such a meaningless amount of money in his life.

If Joe Poor has $10 to his name and you give him $1k, he's going to put all of it back into the economy pretty much immediately. Joe Poor has tremendous incentive to put that $1k to work immediately to improve his life.

It's common sense and it's borne out in reality.

When we give a bunch of money to the people, they spend it in the economy.

30 million of assets(wealth) and 30 million of liquidity are two vastly different things.  Joe Rich with 30 million in assets can definitely need and use the next $1000 in many cases.  

Many midwestern farmers have lots of assets(land, buildings, equipment) but very little cash.

[workswithseed 2036]

@American Swindle Supply side economics. Don't use the obvious trap of trickle down.

[bad_teammate 13132]

38 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

What you call trickle down economics, I call economic reality. 

ok bud!

Quote

As I said, if you have a ton of liquidity, you just don't let it sit in a bank account, you put it in vehicles that put that money to work: businesses, investments, gold, bitcoin...whatever.  Many jobs are created (yes, poor people are among those that get employed in all of this) to facilitate the services that are required to run said business and administer said investments.  If you want to label that trickle down economics as if it is a bad connotation, then whatever...

You are further outlining the theory of trickle down economics and you're doing a great job. What you're failing to realize is that we have been doing this type of economics for decades and it has been a failure. A widely-regarded failure that's even a joke among Republicans now.

37 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

30 million of assets(wealth) and 30 million of liquidity are two vastly different things.  Joe Rich with 30 million in assets can definitely need and use the next $1000 in many cases.  

Many midwestern farmers have lots of assets(land, buildings, equipment) but very little cash.

Midwestern farmers with $30M in assets is an EXTREMELY narrow group of people. (I mean, physically they're probably pretty wide, but you know what I mean.)

The reality is that, taking the average American with $30M in assets over the average American who has nothing or is in debt, that $1k's marginal utility is obviously higher with the broke guy. You're trying to find narrow exceptions, but it just proves the rule.

[American Swindle 102]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

ok bud!

You are further outlining the theory of trickle down economics and you're doing a great job. What you're failing to realize is that we have been doing this type of economics for decades and it has been a failure. A widely-regarded failure that's even a joke among Republicans now.

Midwestern farmers with $30M in assets is an EXTREMELY narrow group of people. (I mean, physically they're probably pretty wide, but you know what I mean.)

The reality is that, taking the average American with $30M in assets over the average American who has nothing or is in debt, that $1k's marginal utility is obviously higher with the broke guy. You're trying to find narrow exceptions, but it just proves the rule.

You're conveniently glossing over the whole government intervention into the free market theme in my argument though. Why do you think Higher Education costs more now and Electronics have gotten cheaper and way more advanced?  

[Llano Estacado 1257]

I re-pointed that out to show that what we consider ideal is not the 100% elimination of wealth inequality, simply addressing yet another lie from the fiscal conservatives.

Also, it indicates that we want less economic inequality.

There is nothing misleading about the chart; it is clearly labelled as "What They (Americans) Would Like It To Be".

It is not labelled as "What Is Reflected In Other Modern Countries" or "What Is A More-Comfortable-To-Llano Distribution Curve".

It doesn't mean they suck at math. There's no math for them to suck at there, because it's a roughly desired distribution averaged across 5000 people's responses. Unless you think 5000 people all came up with that exact chart... which I guess you might think.

 

BT talks more out of his ass. They do suck at math. They’re wishing/desiring for a distribution which can’t occur except in very very narrow distribution of wealth, the math simply doesn’t work. You should lookup the survey you’re discussing before talking out of your ass more. They were shown that chart and preferred it.

 

Wealth inequality is different than economic inequality which is different than income inequality. You’re conflating the two in your post above. NYT and Slate have both conflated the 2 when using that same Norton survey.

 

Here’s an article about those very same Norton and Ariely charts. They swapped Swedish “income distribution” for “wealth distribution” and then surveyed. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/

 

They admit they’re comparing apples to oranges in the footnotes to show contrast. “We used Sweden’s income rather than wealth distribution because it provided clearer contrast to the equal and United States distributions...”

 

“We took a survey of 5000 people and asked if they’d prefer diamonds or graphite, they uniformly liked diamonds.” Great survey, that tells me jackshit about American carbon.

 

If you’re going to have millionaires and you’re going to have 0 or negative wealth people, which I think we can all agree is going to happen in any real world scenario. The math doesn’t allow for the bottom quintile to control 10% of wealth. It just can’t happen in the real world.

 

Real world wealth distribution

Fake wealth distribution

 

“I prefer the one that can’t exist, we should base our economic policies on the one that can’t exist.” Kick ass survey, glad you talked to 5000 people.

[bad_teammate 13132]

36 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

... just blatantly ignores any numbers and actual data you provide ... 1

Like what? Please point out data and numbers I have ignored.

Are you talking about the UTIMCO fund manager pay? I acknowledge that the management of large funds is expensive and complicated; I acknowledged this straight up front. I don't know what more you wanted to discuss about it.

"IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE!"

- "Yes, I know."

"BUT IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE!"

- "Yes, we just went over this."

"YOU WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE!"

Quote

You're conveniently glossing over the whole government intervention into the free market theme in my argument though.

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You argued that the banks and GM were not private, which was false.

I agree that the buyouts were bad. We should've nationalized those industries permanently. Tied to the economy thread, we invested a ton of money in reviving dead private businesses but got basically nothing in return when we just handed them right back to the private market to send us careening towards yet another crisis.

The topic here is establishing a permanent wealth fund paying dividends to all Americans. We can use Alaska as a model or UTIMCO/PUF as a model.

Quote

If you’re going to have millionaires and your going to have 0 or negative wealth people, which I think we can all agree is going to happen in any real world scenario. The math doesn’t allow for the bottom quintile to control 10% of wealth. It just can’t happen in the real world.

The journal that the Harvard and Duke professors published that in was Perspectives on Psychological Science.

The purpose of the study was to capture attitudes, not develop a statistical model for wealth redistribution. The chart is an indicator of the average American's desires, not a statistical analysis from 5,000 economists. It indicates that Americans, on average, want a very different spread of wealth than the nation currently has.

The researchers from Harvard and Duke knew what they were doing, and your purposeful and repeated mischaracterization of their work doesn't mean they're dumber than you; it just means you're intellectually dishonest.

If the particular data on that particular chart is infeasible, that's fine, because the ASF isn't predicated on hitting the numbers of those charts from a psychological journal. The ASF isn't designed to eliminate wealth. The ASF isn't designed to create a completely flat curve.

[American Swindle 102]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You argued that the banks and GM were not private, which was false.

I agree that the buyouts were bad. We should've nationalized those industries permanently. Tied to the economy thread, we invested a ton of money in reviving dead private businesses but got basically nothing in return when we just handed them right back to the private market to send us careening towards yet another crisis.

The topic here is establishing a permanent wealth fund paying dividends to all Americans. We can use Alaska as a model or UTIMCO/PUF as a model.

It has everything to do with it.

It's simply this: Free Market Enterprise based on *VOLUNTARY* Exchange vs Socialism. You want the latter, but you think the former is what got us here when in reality we do not have the former, we have a corrupt/crony version of it.  

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

7 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Oh, we’re making comprehensive economic policy based on attitudes and desires, not anything that could actually happen.  

No. The ASF proposal is not built on the Harvard/Duke study.

The Harvard/Duke study simply represents attitudes and desires. It's from a psychology journal. It is not an economic study and no one is trying to make it seem like one except extremely dishonest people here.

Just now, American Swindle said:

It has everything to do with it.

It's simply this: Free Market Enterprise based on *VOLUNTARY* Exchange vs Socialism. You want the latter, but you think the former is what got us here when in reality we do not have the former, we have a corrupt/crony version of it. 

So you're just angry about "socialism" here in a vague sense? Does any of this relate to the topic (ASF)?

[CHIEF 5072]

Sweden has a nice balance of Capitalism and Socialism, but the majority of the funds do not come from the rich:

I know it's John Stossel, but it seems pretty objective with PBS continent.

CHIEF

[Zavala 1384]

This guy kind of puts it into perspective, theres no problem with capitalism, only crony capitalism. Basically, the more governments get involved in the economy, the more fucked everything gets.

[bad_teammate 13132]

All right, cool, we lasted to Page 3 before being completely hijacked by conservatives furious about socialism even though that's not the topic of the thread.

Thanks for holding out this long, guys.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

How the fuck would that $150k/year engineer have over $20M to leave behind? Can you read?

It's amazing how stupid the smart people are.

Also, did someone just unironically post Jordan Peterson?

Kamala Harris was able do just that as a public servant, ask her?

[American Swindle 102]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

All right, cool, we lasted to Page 3 before being completely hijacked by conservatives furious about socialism even though that's not the topic of the thread.

Thanks for holding out this long, guys.

It's a simple question really:

Do you believe in property rights?  If yes, then should the individual owner of their property determine who gets it when they pass or should the government get to have it and redistribute it for what they deem necessary in the name of economic equality? 

 

Draw up a poll and see how it pans out.  

 

 

[American Swindle 102]

11 minutes ago, Zavala said:

This guy kind of puts it into perspective, theres no problem with capitalism, only crony capitalism. Basically, the more governments get involved in the economy, the more fucked everything gets.

Peter Schiff is great, I'd hope the likes of BT would give it a view.

[CHIEF 5072]

I'm anything but a conservative, you stupid motherfucker. I'm for a voucher system for healthcare, education, and even for vouchers to move those with no means to move, to be able to move to an area with greater opportunity, (truck drivers, cooks, retail sales, maid service in places like North Dakota, Midland and Odessa) even vouchers to subsidize their housing until they get on their feet. I am NOT for just giving people money, or assistance to just sit in an area with no employment and very little economic opportunity.

Our country is failing these people by not moving them to areas to make the most of their possible opportunities. 

Swedens VAT is how they pay for things. It sits at about 25%. Our highest sales tax around here is about 8.25%

One of two things will happen, demand for the product will go down, due to the higher price, or the price will come down to decrease demand under that scenario. It sure as hell has worked for them. Even true Swedish Democratic Socialists have come to an agreement. The last 10 minutes of the video it points you to at http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden has discussion of why it would work in America, but the two political sides are two polarized to sit down and have an adult conversation like Sweden had too.

 

CHIEF

Edited April 3, 2019 by CHIEF

[workswithseed 2036]

Makes thread to talk about ideas.

Gets mad when people dont like his ideas.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

Question 1: Do you think there is a wealth inequality problem in America?
...
- We dramatically underestimate how bad the problem actually is.

In the OP you posted the chart as an example of Americans underestimating wealth inequality. The chart comparing actual wealth inequality to estimated wealth inequality, to a completely fictitious wealth inequality model (Sweden’s income inequality by quintile)

Yes, there would be. And... what? What's your point?
Look at the chart again:

Is the American ideal a situation in which everyone has the exact same amount of wealth and wealth inequality is 100% eliminated?
Look hard.
Look really hard.

Last page you cited the chart specifically the last bar (which can’t exist) as a the “American ideal” for wealth inequality. You told me to “look hard. Look really hard.”

I re-pointed that out to show that what we consider ideal is not the 100% elimination of wealth inequality, simply addressing yet another lie from the fiscal conservatives.
Also, it indicates that we want less economic inequality.

Then you defended the impossible last model again as the ideal for wealth distribution. And call fiscal conservatives liars.

The purpose of the study was to capture attitudes, not develop a statistical model for wealth redistribution. The chart is an indicator of the average American's desires, not a statistical analysis from 5,000 economists. It indicates that Americans, on average, want a very different spread of wealth than the nation currently has.
...
If the particular data on that particular chart is infeasible, that's fine, because the ASF isn't predicated on hitting the numbers of those charts from a psychological journal. The ASF isn't designed to eliminate wealth. The ASF isn't designed to create a completely flat curve.

Again you point to the chart as some want of the American people, but finally admit it may be infeasible to hit the completely fictitious last bar.

It's from a psychology journal. It is not an economic study and no one is trying to make it seem like one except extremely dishonest people here.[/Quote]

Oh, now it’s not an economic study at all, or a model for wealth distribution. Glad we got that dishonesty out of the way.

Now can we can get back to discussing the completely infeasible ASF in the real world

[bad_teammate 13132]

58 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

In the OP you posted the chart as an example of Americans underestimating wealth inequality. The chart comparing actual wealth inequality to estimated wealth inequality, to a completely fictitious wealth inequality model (Sweden’s income inequality by quintile)

Yes. What's your point?

Quote

Then you defended the impossible last model again as the ideal for wealth distribution. And call fiscal conservatives liars.

No I didn't. Quote me.

Quote

Again you point to the chart as some want of the American people, but finally admit it may be infeasible to hit the completely fictitious last bar. 

When did I ever say it was feasible? Quote me.

Quote

Oh, now it’s not an economic study at all, or a model for wealth distribution. Glad we got that dishonesty out of the way.

I never called it one. Quote me.

[edit]

Removed accurate-but-hostile language.

Edited April 3, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Bat Guano 359]

The goal of this idea, as I see it, is to make ordinary citizens more of a stakeholder in corporate America, which is currently turning in plenty of profit. Seems like a better way to do that is the old tried-and-true method of ensuring that employees of those companies are treated as stakeholders, along with the stockholders, rather than as disposable units of labor value. Again, there is a tried and true model for doing this: increasing union representation and collective bargaining rights. Enable the workers to organize so they're on an even footing with management, and they'll be able to get fair remuneration for their labor. There are many advantages to this over the OP proposal, not the least of which are the dignity of earning a fair wage for a fair day's work and the proven history of success in past decades of the union-inclusive economic model. When the Rs busted the unions it led to a steep decline in the middle class, and restoring union power is the best way to reverse that.

[Incredulity 11563]

4 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

The goal of this idea, as I see it, is to make ordinary citizens more of a stakeholder in corporate America, which is currently turning in plenty of profit. Seems like a better way to do that is the old tried-and-true method of ensuring that employees of those companies are treated as stakeholders, along with the stockholders, rather than as disposable units of labor value. Again, there is a tried and true model for doing this: increasing union representation and collective bargaining rights. Enable the workers to organize so they're on an even footing with management, and they'll be able to get fair remuneration for their labor. There are many advantages to this over the OP proposal, not the least of which are the dignity of earning a fair wage for a fair day's work and the proven history of success in past decades of the union-inclusive economic model. When the Rs busted the unions it led to a steep decline in the middle class, and restoring union power is the best way to reverse that.

GM says hello.

You ever work/interact with a Union Shop?  Fair isn't the correct adjective.

[Bat Guano 359]

18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

GM says hello.

You ever work/interact with a Union Shop?  Fair isn't the correct adjective.

GM's problems have nothing to do with the unions.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Bat Guano

[Incredulity 11563]

7 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

GM's problems have nothing to do with the unions.

The labor/pension agreements GM had with UAW were direct causes of it's collapse.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/20/what-explains-gms-problems-with-the-uaw/#6bdb4c69772a

 

Quote

But the extent of its problems with the UAW is astonishing—and the problems themselves warrant explanation. Consider some of the onerous arrangements that GM’s management agreed to.

Labor costs for a typical UAW worker at a GM plant were by some estimates $73 per hour—compared to the $44 per hour for workers at non-unionized Toyota and Honda plants in the U.S.

 

 

 

Or take the infamous “jobs bank”: surplus workers, rather than getting laid off, would receive 95% of their full salaries plus benefits while the company waited to reassign them. But instead of being temporarily idle, thousands of “bankers” would be there for months, if not years, while they watched movies, solved crosswords, and just passed the time. Some senior employees would even pull strings to get “laid off” so they could finish their remaining few years “working” in the bank before retiring with full benefits.

There was also the so-called “thirty and out” rule allowing union workers to retire with full pensions and health care benefits after thirty years of work. A worker might be able to retire in his early 50s and collect an annual pension of $37,500, paid wholly by GM. By 2008 there were 4.6 retired GM employees for each active worker. Did anyone think this was sustainable?

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

The goal of this idea, as I see it, is to make ordinary citizens more of a stakeholder in corporate America, which is currently turning in plenty of profit. Seems like a better way to do that is the old tried-and-true method of ensuring that employees of those companies are treated as stakeholders, along with the stockholders, rather than as disposable units of labor value. Again, there is a tried and true model for doing this: increasing union representation and collective bargaining rights. Enable the workers to organize so they're on an even footing with management, and they'll be able to get fair remuneration for their labor. There are many advantages to this over the OP proposal, not the least of which are the dignity of earning a fair wage for a fair day's work and the proven history of success in past decades of the union-inclusive economic model. When the Rs busted the unions it led to a steep decline in the middle class, and restoring union power is the best way to reverse that.

Oh I agree with your point regarding the necessity of a powerful labor movement. You are 100% right about how much we need power equity within companies. I'm with you every step of the way there. Please believe that all of my political and economic beliefs are fully and completely centered on the right of the working man to have a voice in the utilization of his labor and to receive the fruits of his labor.

Down with the blackleg, all workers unite.

I am curious, however, as to why you put the ASF and a strong union movement in opposition. I don't see the connection.

Let's say Bob's Widgets has a very strong union and its workers are powerful within management. Then the ASF sees the strength of the company and invests. Theoretically then, you have the ASF and the Union in opposition within the management of Bob's Widgets. Is that the issue?

It's an interesting thought, for sure.

I think the guidance within ASF fund management (let's call it ASIMCO) should be designed with human rights and worker's rights in mind. After all, we wouldn't want ASIMCO run like some fund that focuses on slashing jobs and shipping jobs overseas for short-term returns. Slow and steady growth would be just fine as the fund just grows and grows and absorbs more and more wealth to be shared among the people.

Workers go to work with a strong union protecting them, and they take home a good wage. Every month or quarter they get their ASF dividend to supplement that wage (just like every other American - hell, tag on Booker's Baby Bonds plan and put a dividend in for all babies into a fund they can access when they graduate from high school or college).

The Union says:
- I will protect you against the bosses
- I will give you a voice in the utilization of your labor
- I will give you a piece of the product (one might say, fruits) of your labor
- I will ensure your dignity against injury, injustice, and age

But that's just for workers in the market. And most of the nation is not working in the market and will not work in the market. The elderly, the infirm (mentally, emotionally, or physically), the domestic laborer (stay-at-home), the ex-con, the criminal, the imprisoned, and the child.

The ASF would help the non-working American in a way that unions just cannot.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

On 4/2/2019 at 10:18 AM, bad_teammate said:

Question 1: Do you think there is a wealth inequality problem in America?

Question 2: Do you think it is something we have the ability to either solve or, at least, improve?

Question 3: What makes it difficult to talk about or address?

1. Yes.

2. Yes

3. The only way to address wealth inequality is to confiscate the wealth of the extremely wealthy via very high taxes. Which will not happen in the near term.

Ideas like the Giving Pledge are an interesting way for billionaires to not give billions to their children but it doesn't necessarily impact wealth inequality. Sure the kids may not own the wealth but there's a good chance the money could be sitting in a family philanthropic fund that may never distribute the full funds. 

Take something the MacArthur Foundation which by all accounts is a fantastic foundation.  They reward interesting research that may benefit the public but this Foundation appears to also be collecting tremendous amounts of wealth.  The foundation started in '78 with ~1B USD.  The Foundation says they've awarded close to 7B over 40 years and still have another 7B in assets. (to be clear, I'm not saying the MacArthur Foundation is bad.)

Now in another 40 years, will they have 50B in assets?  Will it be 350B in 80 years? At some point even a foundation shouldn't be hoarding wealth as it pulls more wealth into the "owner" class which creates less opportunity for others.  Real estate becomes too expensive for a worker. Everyone becomes a renter, further increasing wealth for owners.

[Bat Guano 359]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Oh I agree with your point regarding the necessity of a powerful labor movement. You are 100% right about how much we need power equity within companies. I'm with you every step of the way there. Please believe that all of my political and economic beliefs are fully and completely centered on the right of the working man to have a voice in the utilization of his labor and to receive the fruits of his labor.

Down with the blackleg, all workers unite.

I am curious, however, as to why you put the ASF and a strong union movement in opposition. I don't see the connection.

Let's say Bob's Widgets has a very strong union and its workers are powerful within management. Then the ASF sees the strength of the company and invests. Theoretically then, you have the ASF and the Union in opposition within the management of Bob's Widgets. Is that the issue?

It's an interesting thought, for sure.

I think the guidance within ASF fund management (let's call it ASIMCO) should be designed with human rights and worker's rights in mind. After all, we wouldn't want ASIMCO run like some fund that focuses on slashing jobs and shipping jobs overseas for short-term returns. Slow and steady growth would be just fine as the fund just grows and grows and absorbs more and more wealth to be shared among the people.

Workers go to work with a strong union protecting them, and they take home a good wage. Every month or quarter they get their ASF dividend to supplement that wage (just like every other American - hell, tag on Booker's Baby Bonds plan and put a dividend in for all babies into a fund they can access when they graduate from high school or college).

The Union says:
- I will protect you against the bosses
- I will give you a voice in the utilization of your labor
- I will give you a piece of the product (one might say, fruits) of your labor
- I will ensure your dignity against injury, injustice, and age

But that's just for workers in the market. And most of the nation is not working in the market and will not work in the market. The elderly, the infirm (mentally, emotionally, or physically), the domestic laborer (stay-at-home), the ex-con, the criminal, the imprisoned, and the child.

The ASF would help the non-working American in a way that unions just cannot.

It's not that the two ideas are in opposition; I just don't see the value of the ASF. As in my earlier comments, upwards of 80% of the stock market is owned by the investor class. Pumping more money into it will only increase their wealth and, by extension, their political power. I just don't see the redistributive aspect of it; it seems way more likely to increase inequality than decrease it. The labor movement is a much better place to put limited political capital, IMO.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Quote

As in my earlier comments, upwards of 80% of the stock market is owned by the investor class. Pumping more money into it will only increase their wealth and, by extension, their political power. I just don't see the redistributive aspect of it; it seems way more likely to increase inequality than decrease it.

A necessary thing will be funding the ASF, and its funding should be directly taken from the wealth class via taxation/what-have-you.

If we funded it with a steep inheritance tax, do you really not see it as taking money away from the investor class? If $49.9B of Charles Koch's $50B fortune went into the ASF upon his death instead of the hands of his scions, how is that not redistributive?

Quote

The labor movement is a much better place to put limited political capital, IMO.

Sure. That's why all the (good) candidates are talking about labor and none are talking about direct redistributive schemes. But we're free of the constraints of political capital in theoretical discussions.

[fattyflattie 4636]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If we funded it with a steep inheritance tax, do you really not see it as taking money away from the investor class? If $49.9B of Charles Koch's $50B fortune went into the ASF upon his death instead of the hands of his scions, how is that not redistributive?

IdiAmin.gif

[American Swindle 102]

On 4/3/2019 at 10:41 AM, Bat Guano said:

Well, at least you answered the first question.

What I prefer is a capitalism that has appropriate controls so that the vast majority of people are not horribly exploited by the wealthy few. Some inequality is inevitable, but too much will lead to the system destroying itself, as history shows us.

Can you give us all an example of how capitalism exploits people?  In your answer, please explain how those you deem being exploited are being held against their will.  Are they being forced to work?  What is their other option?

Would you say kids in Bangladesh are being exploited for having worked in the textile manufacturing plants?    

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Can you give us all an example of how capitalism exploits people?  In your answer, please explain how those you deem being exploited are being held against their will.  Are they being forced to work?  What is their other option?

Would you say kids in Bangladesh are being exploited for having worked in the textile manufacturing plants?    

Any time a profitable company pays its full-time workers insufficient to afford the basic necessities of life - food, housing, clothing, health care - the workers are being exploited. Cue the McDonald's and Wal-Mart and other employees on food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance. What is their other option? Well, I guess they could let their kids starve; that's an option. The term 'wage slave' exists because it is a real thing. Look at the factory conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when capitalism existed in a more pure form and huge individual fortunes were created on the labor of thousands of underpaid, overworked people; if you don't consider that exploitation, I don't know what to tell you.

[American Swindle 102]

19 hours ago, CHIEF said:

I'm anything but a conservative, you stupid motherfucker. I'm for a voucher system for healthcare, education, and even for vouchers to move those with no means to move, to be able to move to an area with greater opportunity, (truck drivers, cooks, retail sales, maid service in places like North Dakota, Midland and Odessa) even vouchers to subsidize their housing until they get on their feet. I am NOT for just giving people money, or assistance to just sit in an area with no employment and very little economic opportunity.

Our country is failing these people by not moving them to areas to make the most of their possible opportunities. 

Swedens VAT is how they pay for things. It sits at about 25%. Our highest sales tax around here is about 8.25%

One of two things will happen, demand for the product will go down, due to the higher price, or the price will come down to decrease demand under that scenario. It sure as hell has worked for them. Even true Swedish Democratic Socialists have come to an agreement. The last 10 minutes of the video it points you to at http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden has discussion of why it would work in America, but the two political sides are two polarized to sit down and have an adult conversation like Sweden had too.

 

CHIEF

Sweden has a population of 8.8 million dude.  They don't nation build like the US and contrary to popular DSA-NPC opinion, Sweden actually succeeded economically not because of welfare state spending or government interventions, but due to a movement of classical liberalism and a laissez-faire attitude in the period of 1840 to 1870. During this period,  they wanted to reduce government to open up to free trade and deregulating industry.  As a result, between 1860 and 1910 real wages in Sweden increased by 25% per decade in manufacturing.  This was 20 years before the Social Democrats ever got power in Sweden.  So in historical reality, Sweden's wealth was built upon free-market capitalism, which gave them the ability to afford much of their welfare programs throughout the 20th century.  That, and the Swedish people had a high level of trust in government workers.  I can't say us Americans have that trust here (well, at least I don't, but it seems most on the Left do as most neo-conservatives.) 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

34 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Can you give us all an example of how capitalism exploits people?  In your answer, please explain how those you deem being exploited are being held against their will.  Are they being forced to work?  What is their other option?

That's not what "exploit" means. You're stupid and should stop talking.

[Incredulity 11563]

6 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Any time a profitable company pays its full-time workers insufficient to afford the basic necessities of life - food, housing, clothing, health care - the workers are being exploited. Cue the McDonald's and Wal-Mart and other employees on food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance. What is their other option? Well, I guess they could let their kids starve; that's an option. The term 'wage slave' exists because it is a real thing. Look at the factory conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when capitalism existed in a more pure form and huge individual fortunes were created on the labor of thousands of underpaid, overworked people; if you don't consider that exploitation, I don't know what to tell you.

Are workers "expolited" if they can't provide "necessities of life" to the worker, the worker and spouse, the worker and family of 5?

McDonalds, Wal-Mart, ect..... didn't create the reality by which their employees are utilizing gov't benefits to survive.  They are part of the reality, its completely dynamic and changing at all times.  Paying your employee's more because "it's the right thing to do" is certainly a noble calling.  On the other side of the equation are competitive market forces and consumers demanding $100 televisions and the Dollar Menu.

Factory conditions of the IR and today in the US are apples and oranges.  Unions are dying because the Federal Gov't and State Gov'ts have become defacto Union negotiators.  Min Wage, Paid Sick Leave, FMLA, OSHA, O'care, .......   (that's not an argument against those worker benefits, just commentary on the current reality)

[bad_teammate 13132]

Market capitalism encourages the exploitation of every possible resource to increase profits. Workers are one of those resources. Only government intervention prevents exploitation of "human capital".

This isn't hard to understand.

[Incredulity 11563]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Market capitalism encourages the exploitation of every possible resource to increase profits. Workers are one of those resources. Only government intervention prevents exploitation of "human capital".

This isn't hard to understand.

sometimes it facilitates it.

The only fair thing to do is go back to hunter/gatherer lives in mud huts.

[workswithseed 2036]

New ways of taxing the rich.

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

sometimes it facilitates it.

The only fair thing to do is go back to hunter/gatherer lives in mud huts.

or heavily regulate and democratize market capitalism

You know, the obvious solution.

[Grandioso 2592]

On 4/2/2019 at 10:18 AM, bad_teammate said:

Question 1: Do you think there is a wealth inequality problem in America?

Question 2: Do you think it is something we have the ability to either solve or, at least, improve?

Question 3: What makes it difficult to talk about or address?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. The low income folks seem to just accept it as their lot in life. The middle class think they are rich or will be rich someday. The 1% owns Congress and the President. 

[American Swindle 102]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's not what "exploit" means. You're stupid and should stop talking.

Oh man, the OP got me here, can't have a civil discussion without tilting into name calling? 

 

I was not defining the term "exploit" as workers being held against their will, I was only trying to make the point that no one that you deem as being exploited is having a gun pointed to their head and forced to work.  Jees.  

[Grandioso 2592]

The 1% don't understand how much their fate is tied to the 99% rabble. The rich invest and save their money. The poors spend it. When the middle class disappears, there will be no one to left to consume the goods, services, and resources the rich sell to the poors. Supply (clap) side (clap) economics (clap) does (clap) not (clap) work. It is in the interest of the rich, ultimately, for our tax schemes to be less regressive and more progressive.

[Incredulity 11563]

I'd vote for someone pitching:

1.) Mandatory living minimum wage

2.) Elimination of vast majority of Gov't benefits

 

 

But, I am not going to hold my breath.

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Bat Guano said:

Any time a profitable company pays its full-time workers insufficient to afford the basic necessities of life - food, housing, clothing, health care - the workers are being exploited. Cue the McDonald's and Wal-Mart and other employees on food stamps, medicaid, and housing assistance. What is their other option? Well, I guess they could let their kids starve; that's an option. The term 'wage slave' exists because it is a real thing. Look at the factory conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when capitalism existed in a more pure form and huge individual fortunes were created on the labor of thousands of underpaid, overworked people; if you don't consider that exploitation, I don't know what to tell you.

If anything, these profitable private company's you refer to are actually employing and *helping* the people you are claiming are being exploited. In addition, they are accepting a job under their own free will.  Hell, I worked for 5.15/hour as a college freshman over the summer for a County in South Texas.  Was the county exploiting me?  No, because I learned skills on the job that gave me experience to attain other opportunities.  Working to make end's meet sounds better than starving in my opinion, but then again, this whole discussion doesn't really get to the root of the problem.  Why has the cost of living gone up so much? Why is healthcare so expensive?  Why is the dollar worth way less now?  The complex answer explains the wealth gap, and it ain't because of free market capitalism, that's for sure.  

 

 

[Bat Guano 359]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

McDonalds, Wal-Mart, ect..... didn't create the reality by which their employees are utilizing gov't benefits to survive.  They are part of the reality, its completely dynamic and changing at all times. 

Bolded contradicts your first sentence; they did play a part in creating that reality. A big part.

 

Quote

Paying your employee's more because "it's the right thing to do" is certainly a noble calling.  On the other side of the equation are competitive market forces and consumers demanding $100 televisions and the Dollar Menu.

Yes, that is capitalism. The question I was answering was how capitalism exploits workers. Thanks for your help.

 

Quote

Factory conditions of the IR and today in the US are apples and oranges.  Unions are dying because the Federal Gov't and State Gov'ts have become defacto Union negotiators.  Min Wage, Paid Sick Leave, FMLA, OSHA, O'care, .......   (that's not an argument against those worker benefits, just commentary on the current reality)

Why are factory conditions better now? Is it because of unrestrained capitalism?

[Bat Guano 359]

23 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

If anything, these profitable private company's you refer to are actually employing and *helping* the people you are claiming are being exploited. In addition, they are accepting a job under their own free will.  Hell, I worked for 5.15/hour as a college freshman over the summer for a County in South Texas.  Was the county exploiting me?  No, because I learned skills on the job that gave me experience to attain other opportunities.  Working to make end's meet sounds better than starving in my opinion, but then again, this whole discussion doesn't really get to the root of the problem.  Why has the cost of living gone up so much? Why is healthcare so expensive?  Why is the dollar worth way less now?  The complex answer explains the wealth gap, and it ain't because of free market capitalism, that's for sure. 

Seriously, dude? You think the summer job your pampered suburban ass took as a freshman reflects the reality of life for millions of low-income workers? Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick, grow the fuck up. Venture out of your entitled ideological bubble and take a look at how the world really works. I recommend this to start with:

 

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

Read it. You might learn something.

 

[Incredulity 11563]

7 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Bolded contradicts your first sentence; they did play a part in creating that reality. A big part.

 

What I am saying is they didn't create the current system of transfer payments. They certainly are part of it and certain corporations have lobbied for their interests.

[Bat Guano 359]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What I am saying is they didn't create the current system of transfer payments. They certainly are part of it and certain corporations have lobbied for their interests.

Why do you think we, as a society, determined that such transfer payments were necessary? Could it have had anything to do with the wage structures?

[American Swindle 102]

17 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Seriously, dude? You think the summer job your pampered suburban ass took as a freshman reflects the reality of life for millions of low-income workers? Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick, grow the fuck up. Venture out of your entitled ideological bubble and take a look at how the world really works. I recommend this to start with:

 

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

Read it. You might learn something.

 

 

How would you inspect I was a pampered ass suburban kid?  I grew up in the trailer parks in the South around drugs, alcohol and redneck culture so why don't you shut the fuck up? And it's rich you tell me to grow the fuck up coming from one who acts like the poorest folk in America have it so bad.  News Flash: capitalism was part of making the American bottom 10% the top 1% in the ENTIRE WORLD!  Your precious book probably doesn't touch on that does it?  

 

You said it yourself: voluntarily take a job to make ends meet or starve?  

 

And why we're on the subject of suggesting books to enlighten people we disagree with, I recommend you read this:

 

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=henry+hazlitt+economics+in+one+lesson&hvadid=77996657994785&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_5qssxg6m6s_e

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

"TAKE AN ECONOMICS CLASS!" - Someone who has probably never taken an economics class

[Bat Guano 359]

15 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

How would you inspect I was a pampered ass suburban kid?

 

 

Quote

I grew up in the trailer parks in the South around drugs, alcohol and redneck culture so why don't you shut the fuck up?

You're trotting out a story from years ago when you went slumming for a summer as if you learned something about being poor. You didn't, and it shows.

 

Quote

And it's rich you tell me to grow the fuck up coming from one who acts like the poorest folk in America have it so bad.  News Flash: capitalism was part of making the American bottom 10% the top 1% in the ENTIRE WORLD!  Your precious book probably doesn't touch on that does it?  

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[American Swindle 102]

28 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

 

You're trotting out a story from years ago when you went slumming for a summer as if you learned something about being poor. You didn't, and it shows.

 

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Your responses have been  full of assumption and irony.  I'll just stahp with you, because apparently I'm using words you can't understand and ideas that are too big for your mind.  Take care pal. 

[American Swindle 102]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"TAKE AN ECONOMICS CLASS!" - Someone who has probably never taken an economics class

Keep spouting your NPC-DSA propaganda and it will get smashed every time like it has in this thread.  No one likes your ideas bud, sorry.  I'm sure it's apparent to everyone that your constant skirting of the real simple direct questions affirm you are hollow when it comes to anything based on facts, logic and history.