Why right or left?

[Downed Pilots]

Relying on the altruism of the wealthy is not a very definite thing. Also, that still doesn't really help the underlying problem of income inequality in the nation. As a self-identified liberal, I mainly am on the side I am because I believe that everyone should be taken care of (I'm not saying that the upper class would have to go away, but regulating the top 1% would help A LOT. You might think I'm just being unoriginal and they've had enough beating over the head, but the top 1% control over 35% of the nation's wealth [US here] and half of the nation's stocks. I'm still very supportive of America being a land of opportunity, but I believe it can't really be such unless everyone is taken care of).

I feel like people use the argument that they control most wealth too much. The 1% is a surprisingly large group (more than 3 million Americans), and as a member, I'll be the first to say, we're not necessarily all rich. I have no lambos nor do I eat lobster.

The vast majority of people living in poverty in the US have either dropped out of high school, had a child before marriage, or committed a felony. This is a problem of education. Stocks, and most investment options are perfectly available to the poor. However, there's an attitude of disregard. Poverty (atleast in the western world) is a choice.

You're not in the top 1% if you aren't rich (not talking billions, but certainly millions). Average income for top 1% is over 1 million a year. You can be in the top 1% and be only moderately rich, but that's a different discussion. Basically, if you're in the top 1% of income you don't need to worry about money, it doesn't take owning a lambo or lobster to do that.

The facts from http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Wealth or income class (Mean household income) (Mean household net worth) (Mean household financial (non-home) wealth)
Top 1 percent ($1,318,200) ($16,439,400) ($15,171,600)
Top 20 percent ($226,200) ($2,061,600) ($1,719,800)
60th-80th percentile ($72,000) ($216,900) ($100,700)
40th-60th percentile ($41,700) ($61,000) ($12,200)
Bottom 40 percent ($17,300) (-$10,600) (-$14,800)

Negatives ARE possible in the latter two categories. They mean debt outweighs assets.

[The Arctic Kingdom]

Because, I am a Social Liberal because I ultimately believe that it's the government's responsibility to provide education, healthcare, ad welfare to it's people, and that it should stay out people's personal lives and business. Additionally, the idea of a gentle, compassionate, tolerant government that provides for it's people democratically really appeals to me.

[The Cobalt Sky]

"struggle to juggle" HAH! (sorry)

But seriously, I think that they shouldn't have got so big in the first place. I also think that even if they are falling apart, and they somehow do fall apart, they'll only be swallowed by another corporate giant.

Who? All the big players will be dead then. I foresee buyouts of locations and the creation of multitudes of smaller businesses. But when it happens, there will be more than when Wal-Mart started. That is the creation and recycling of wealth; the circle of capitalism, if you would. Any disruption could cause a massive detriment, like bank subsidy. The top whatever banks? Those too big to fail? They're dead already. They just need to be allowed to dissolve.

No, I mean if they're actually collapsing someone will be there to gobble them up. Also, I'm not 100% on this prophecy of yours. They shouldn't have gotten that big to begin with. And how are you so sure they're falling apart? How are you sure that, say, Target or K-Mart are also falling apart as well? And I don't like this idea of cyclical capitalism. If it is somehow a cycle, then it should be kept perpetually in the stage where businesses are numerous, and never reach the stage where one begins eating all the others. People should never have to go through something like that.

[Talonis]

I feel like people use the argument that they control most wealth too much. The 1% is a surprisingly large group (more than 3 million Americans), and as a member, I'll be the first to say, we're not necessarily all rich. I have no lambos nor do I eat lobster.

The vast majority of people living in poverty in the US have either dropped out of high school, had a child before marriage, or committed a felony. This is a problem of education. Stocks, and most investment options are perfectly available to the poor. However, there's an attitude of disregard. Poverty (atleast in the western world) is a choice.

You're not in the top 1% if you aren't rich. Average income for top 1% is over 1 million a year. You can be in the top 1% and be only moderately rich, but that's a different discussion. Basically, if you're in the top 1% of income you don't need to worry about money, it doesn't take owning a lambo or lobster to do that.

You could own stock in Seaboard...

Seriously, that crap is NEVER going up in value, and it's too expensive to sell.

But yeah, just being the owner of something may increase your value, but in terms of USEABLE, fluid, spendable cash, you might be living on the street.

[Olivaero]

I used to be on the right when I was 16 I remember the year well, it was when I received my first formal education in the countries political system, I was a One nation conservative, even today I think that is the least harmful version of conservatism in our country, I remember thinking it was the responsible path before I was 16 as much as anyone who is below 16 can be said to have a Ideology I was definetly left wing I'd read a few books about the system being crap I hadn't properly absorbed them but I figured there was definitely something wrong with the system I described myself as a radical centerist. Then I can't remember exactly what it was but I fooled myself into thinking that I was avoiding the right because I didn't want to face the hard questions, My mum and dad are solidly right wing and I couldn't answer some of the shit they'd throw at me so I said oh okay, the responsible thing to do is embrace the right it's not pretty but it is necessary.

So I spent the whole year defending my positions to my peers and teachers, it had to be said I was pretty good at it, only one problem, I hated having to answer these questions like this, I could see where the other side was coming from, people need to be helped! And thus I feel onto any rightists weapon of last resort: the economy. Labour were bad for the economy it was self evident after the financial crash, we had spent recklessly and it was all those pesky left wingers fault, if we want to help people we need a strong economy and thus that means the right!

The one cold November after noon afternoon I was dumped by someone who at the time I thought was the love of my life, (I was 17 typical teenage folly) and it sparked a massive revaluation of my entire perspective on life, I concluded I was too anti-social and I didn't think enough about how others feel this re-evaluation eventually spilled over into my political thinking I came to realize that I had fallen into a logical trap. I believe Obamas campaign was starting up at about this time in the states, which probably heightened my consciousness to these things, I watched a lot of fox news coverage on the election (for the lols mainly I have never bought into the shit they spout) the way to help people is to... actually help people to help people buy food you give them money to buy food to help people find work you ensure there is work for them, to allow people to be truly free you need to give them a safety net so the choices they make about their life are made in accordance with what they want to do not what the market offers them to do or rather what people talk about the market offering.

So there you have it I rediscovered the left when I re-learnt compassion.

[Margno]

Why do they belong to the business owner?

They either made the product or bought the rights to produce it.

The laborers contractually agree in good faith to produce the products for the owner for a compensation.

The laborers sign off their rights to their products for money.

By definition, they didn't make the product. Alright, they bought the right to take what their workers produce, sell it, and then give their workers a fraction of the value. And they bought this, not for any money, but by securing the workers' consent. The workers, of course, didn't give consent to have the products of their labor taken from them in exchange for a fraction of their value of their own free will, they did it because they physically couldn't work in the industry otherwise, because the larger empires were capable of out competing them, we're capable of paying the entry cost into the industry, and bought out the other industries they would need to do business with to sell to themselves cheaply but put the cost of supplies out of the reach of others, but as long as they signed the piece of paper, it's not really exploitation, is it? Never mind that the business owner's one and only contribution to the industry was already having money when it started so he could pay off the people who's contributions, despite being typical amounts of labor, were technically necessary for the industry to have formed. So because ten years ago they paid a few million dollars to the guy who had just invented a new operating system, it clearly follows that the billion dollar industry operated by millions today that evolved from that operating system is their sovereign property and they have the rights to keep most of the profits from that industry that are produced by those millions of people under coercion for their own personal use and we of course need to continue coercing those millions into this relationship because something something property. You know what? It's time we faced the fact that property doesn't exist. No argument can be made whatsoever for why people morally have a right to control everything that results from their actions at any point down the line or why people morally have a right to use that control to coercively take away the same right for other people and no argument can be made for why its inevitable that that will happen or the economy needs for that to happen, we just assert that and never question it. Why would their be a right to property? That's the question no one answers.

[Talonis]

No, I mean if they're actually collapsing someone will be there to gobble them up. Also, I'm not 100% on this prophecy of yours. They shouldn't have gotten that big to begin with. And how are you so sure they're falling apart? How are you sure that, say, Target or K-Mart are also falling apart as well? And I don't like this idea of cyclical capitalism. If it is somehow a cycle, then it should be kept perpetually in the stage where businesses are numerous, and never reach the stage where one begins eating all the others. People should never have to go through something like that.

I'm sure they're falling apart because you cannot have permanent, assured, and limitless growth, which is the driver of stock prices. Everything will eventually decline, and there will be people waiting to pick it back up when it happens.

Since it is a cycle, those who have the best idea will triumph above the rest, and bring a superior product to the masses by overtaking inferior businesses.

As for people going through that, all you need to avoid it is a) a better idea or system, or b) have researched and found the winning stocks, which is more of a logical game than a random one.

[Downed Pilots]

You're not in the top 1% if you aren't rich. Average income for top 1% is over 1 million a year. You can be in the top 1% and be only moderately rich, but that's a different discussion. Basically, if you're in the top 1% of income you don't need to worry about money, it doesn't take owning a lambo or lobster to do that.

You could own stock in Seaboard...

Seriously, that crap is NEVER going up in value, and it's too expensive to sell.

But yeah, just being the owner of something may increase your value, but in terms of USEABLE, fluid, spendable cash, you might be living on the street.

If you're in the top 1% in value and you are living on the street out of necessity, you need a better investment banker. You shouldn't have all your assets that tied up......

[Talonis]

You could own stock in Seaboard...

Seriously, that crap is NEVER going up in value, and it's too expensive to sell.

But yeah, just being the owner of something may increase your value, but in terms of USEABLE, fluid, spendable cash, you might be living on the street.

If you're in the top 1% in value and you are living on the street out of necessity, you need a better investment banker. You shouldn't have all your assets that tied up......

I concur wholeheartedly. Just giving examples.
Also, if you bought into them early, when they were still fluid, and then they grew, well, yer banker'd be waltzin' off with all your cash.

[The Social Justice Warrior]

As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

compassion for our fellow man, a sincere desire to set up a system that upholds human dignity and rights?

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged.

i find privilege immoral.

I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic.

as long as we have your assurances, i suppose.

[Bombadil]

I don't know about the terms left or right, but I do believe in a few things..

I believe that everyone should have equal access to education, I believe in a strong public education system and I lean towards abolishing private schools - I don't see why some people should be granted such a leg up in life when, by very dint of being sent to a private school, they have so many advantages anyway.
I believe everyone should have free, or heavily subsidized, access to healthcare. I think that a society that allows for people to suffer for illness because they can't afford healthcare, and even the economic costs that brings to a society in terms of productivity and various others, is not s responsible society. Having said that, I would not abolish private healthcare in the way that I would education.

I don't believe in absolute equality, I just don't think it's possible, but I do believe that, as a society, we should give everyone as equal an opportunity as possible - some may see that as 'punishing' the rich but those people do not exist in a vacuum, their riches are a result of the society they live in. More I see it as levelling the playing field.

Other than that, I'm relatively easy.

Unfortunately, some other aspects of life that are entirely irrelevant also mark one out.

I don't believe in God
I think we should do something about the climate
I don't believe in the death penalty, nor do I see why there can't be some checks on firearms at least
I believe a woman has a right to choose

I don't think these should mark one out as anything other than rational, it's a pity they're so politicized for wedge issue purposes.

[The Cobalt Sky]

No, I mean if they're actually collapsing someone will be there to gobble them up. Also, I'm not 100% on this prophecy of yours. They shouldn't have gotten that big to begin with. And how are you so sure they're falling apart? How are you sure that, say, Target or K-Mart are also falling apart as well? And I don't like this idea of cyclical capitalism. If it is somehow a cycle, then it should be kept perpetually in the stage where businesses are numerous, and never reach the stage where one begins eating all the others. People should never have to go through something like that.

I'm sure they're falling apart because you cannot have permanent, assured, and limitless growth, which is the driver of stock prices. Everything will eventually decline, and there will be people waiting to pick it back up when it happens.

Since it is a cycle, those who have the best idea will triumph above the rest, and bring a superior product to the masses by overtaking inferior businesses.

As for people going through that, all you need to avoid it is a) a better idea or system, or b) have researched and found the winning stocks, which is more of a logical game than a random one.

Just because their growth may not be limitless doesn't mean it isn't enough to seriously damage the world or stop them from retaining a monopoly, since there always could be the advent of new technology or products for people to buy, and if it did crash, they could be so rich they'd come out on top. But anyway, necessities like food are undeniable, and there probably won't be a replacement for food ever. I think a better system would be one with more restrictions. That whole gobbling up part really bothers me, no matter what the eventual (supposed) outcome.

[Atlanticatia]

Because I believe in social justice, and that all people have equal rights. Also, an egalitarian society works pretty well on the economic side, too.

[Talonis]

I'm sure they're falling apart because you cannot have permanent, assured, and limitless growth, which is the driver of stock prices. Everything will eventually decline, and there will be people waiting to pick it back up when it happens.

Since it is a cycle, those who have the best idea will triumph above the rest, and bring a superior product to the masses by overtaking inferior businesses.

As for people going through that, all you need to avoid it is a) a better idea or system, or b) have researched and found the winning stocks, which is more of a logical game than a random one.

Just because their growth may not be limitless doesn't mean it isn't enough to seriously damage the world or stop them from retaining a monopoly, since there always could be the advent of new technology or products for people to buy, and if it did crash, they could be so rich they'd come out on top. But anyway, necessities like food are undeniable, and there probably won't be a replacement for food ever. I think a better system would be one with more restrictions. That whole gobbling up part really bothers me, no matter what the eventual (supposed) outcome.

It actually does, ergo the stock market's rise AND fall.
And they wouldn't come out on top. They'd hit rock bottom as their stock values fell.
Also, notice how McDonald's hasn't been growing? Have you seen how scared the execs are of that? Food is just another cycle. No, you can't replace it, but then you need to factor in the concept of substitute goods.

[The Grim Reaper]

I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

What a convincing and reputable study.

I assure you, Jesus hates white people, and poor people are God's angels sent to test the Leftists' dedication to fighting the Armies of Satan in the guise of the right-wing bourgeoisie and center-left reactionaries.

Also God isn't real and is actually just a giant quark in the middle of Vermont who Obama chats with now and again in binary.

[Benuty]

As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

Someone you have constructed this myth that it is all about "redistribution".

Utter nonsense.

[Olerand]

I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

What a convincing and reputable study.

I assure you, Jesus hates white people, and poor people are God's angels sent to test the Leftists' dedication to fighting the Armies of Satan in the guise of the right-wing bourgeoisie and center-left reactionaries.

Also God isn't real and is actually just a giant quark in the middle of Vermont who Obama chats with now and again in binary.

Much as his 80% of America's poor are poor by choice study.

I truly do admire the American Right.

[Greater Weselton]

Leftists are often indoctrinated into accept their views.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Leftists are often indoctrinated into accept their views.

Hahahaha..... oh wait, you're serious.

[Bunkeranlage]

Leftists are often indoctrinated into accept their views.

And rightists are not?

Wow. Just wow.

[Greater Weselton]

Leftists are often indoctrinated into accept their views.

And rightists are not?

Wow. Just wow.

Some rightists are indoctrinated.

[Communist Volkstrad]

And rightists are not?

Wow. Just wow.

Some rightists are indoctrinated.

Everyone's beliefs are formed by their experiences.

[Bunkeranlage]

And rightists are not?

Wow. Just wow.

Some rightists are indoctrinated.

So your statement doesn't prove anything. People are indoctrinated into just about any ideology, whether it be left or right.

[The New Sea Territory]

Leftists are often indoctrinated into accept their views.

If Left is the new Right, sure.

[Neo Rome Republic]

It appeals to my personal ideals and vision and I think it's economic ideas are correct. Not much else to say.