Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[Shallowell]

Yay capitalism! Yay money! Three cheers for achievement!

[Redenstaat]

What it essentially means is government owned means of production.

Actually, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what it is.

Please take the time to make sure that you know what you're talking about, before you talk about it. It saves a lot of people--yourself not the least--a lot of time.

I think the history of communist movements on a government-wide scale proves what I said to be true.

Even without that, part of the Communist theory is its stages of economic law, with Socialism being a mid-way between Capitalism and Communism - Socialism is partial or complete government ownership of the means of production. Sure, this would not be the case once the final stage (Communism) comes into play, but it is a utopian theory and has never reached the purposed final stage. A stateless people with no government is nonsense (as a positive thing) - it can be seen with Lenin creating his Bolshevik dictatorship in an effort to bring the final stage closer, and instead, it just created and kept a dictatorship.

[AiliailiA]

Yay capitalism! Yay money! Three cheers for achievement!

You are a very shallow well aren't you?

Wealth is not a measure of achievement. It may come from achievement but it doesn't necessarily (inherited wealth for instance, or lottery winnings).

[Libertarian California]

Yay capitalism! Yay money! Three cheers for achievement!

You are a very shallow well aren't you?

Wealth is not a measure of achievement. It may come from achievement but it doesn't necessarily (inherited wealth for instance, or lottery winnings).

This isn't an aristocracy. Less rich people inherited their wealth than you would believe.

[Shallowell]

Yay capitalism! Yay money! Three cheers for achievement!

You are a very shallow well aren't you?

Wealth is not a measure of achievement. It may come from achievement but it doesn't necessarily (inherited wealth for instance, or lottery winnings).

Sure, but when it's the already rich getting richer, it's unlikely that they inherited a significant amount of that wealth or won the lottery for it (though possible, I suppose). The vast majority of rich people in the world made themselves rich, at least for the most part.

[The Black Forrest]

You are a very shallow well aren't you?

Wealth is not a measure of achievement. It may come from achievement but it doesn't necessarily (inherited wealth for instance, or lottery winnings).

This isn't an aristocracy. Less rich people inherited their wealth than you would believe.

However, the number isn't as small as you suggest......

[AiliailiA]

You are a very shallow well aren't you?

Wealth is not a measure of achievement. It may come from achievement but it doesn't necessarily (inherited wealth for instance, or lottery winnings).

This isn't an aristocracy. Less rich people inherited their wealth than you would believe.

You don't know how much I believe and you're bringing no figures.

I don't know why I'm even replying

[The Serbian Empire]

There is no cure as the rich are the ones who can afford lobbyists. I just don't see rich politicians voting against their own interests.

[AiliailiA]

You are a very shallow well aren't you?

Wealth is not a measure of achievement. It may come from achievement but it doesn't necessarily (inherited wealth for instance, or lottery winnings).

Sure, but when it's the already rich getting richer, it's unlikely that they inherited a significant amount of that wealth or won the lottery for it (though possible, I suppose). The vast majority of rich people in the world made themselves rich, at least for the most part.

Up to the first million bucks perhaps. That's not really the problem: it's how beyond a certain level of wealth they have to be outright incompetent NOT to get wealthier and wealthier. Just by owning assets which appreciate in value (generally stocks).

I'm thinking a progressive capital gains tax might be called for. Everybody would be encouraged to own some stocks by a low or zero rate on the first $3K a year, rising to the same rate as income tax at the highest bracket.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Actually, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what it is.

Please take the time to make sure that you know what you're talking about, before you talk about it. It saves a lot of people--yourself not the least--a lot of time.

I think the history of communist movements on a government-wide scale proves what I said to be true.

Even the mere language you use evidences such a comprehensive failure to understand basic fundamental structural features of a communist society that my earlier advice still holds.

Even without that, part of the Communist theory

Not all communists adhere to a Marxist world-historical outlook; many even reject it explicitly.

is its stages of economic law, with Socialism being a mid-way between Capitalism and Communism - Socialism is partial or complete government ownership of the means of production. Sure, this would not be the case once the final stage (Communism) comes into play, but it is a utopian theory and has never reached the purposed final stage.

All the societies that have, in fact, been communist (to the extent that it's possible to be communist without worldwide communism) would beg to differ.

A stateless people with no government is nonsense

"Stateless" does not mean "no government."

it can be seen with Lenin creating his Bolshevik dictatorship in an effort to bring the final stage closer, and instead, it just created and kept a dictatorship.

Many, perhaps even most present-day communists of a Marxist bent would argue that what happened in Russia is not a failure of Marxist world-historical theory, but a failure of the Russian social-democrats (specifically the Bolshevik faction) to, essentially, let history develop itself--in other words, it's not the theory that's bad; Lenin's dudes just made the mistake of trying to rush things.

[Shallowell]

Sure, but when it's the already rich getting richer, it's unlikely that they inherited a significant amount of that wealth or won the lottery for it (though possible, I suppose). The vast majority of rich people in the world made themselves rich, at least for the most part.

Up to the first million bucks perhaps. That's not really the problem: it's how beyond a certain level of wealth they have to be outright incompetent NOT to get wealthier and wealthier. Just by owning assets which appreciate in value (generally stocks).

I'm thinking a progressive capital gains tax might be called for. Everybody would be encouraged to own some stocks by a low or zero rate on the first $3K a year, rising to the same rate as income tax at the highest bracket.

How is having wealthy people a problem?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Up to the first million bucks perhaps. That's not really the problem: it's how beyond a certain level of wealth they have to be outright incompetent NOT to get wealthier and wealthier. Just by owning assets which appreciate in value (generally stocks).

I'm thinking a progressive capital gains tax might be called for. Everybody would be encouraged to own some stocks by a low or zero rate on the first $3K a year, rising to the same rate as income tax at the highest bracket.

How is having wealthy people a problem?

Because the private ownership or unequal distribution of wealth is incompatible with a free society.

[Mike the Progressive]

How is having wealthy people a problem?

Because the private ownership or unequal distribution of wealth is incompatible with a free society.

No, it's not.

[Shallowell]

How is having wealthy people a problem?

Because the private ownership or unequal distribution of wealth is incompatible with a free society.

I'm pretty sure state ownership of all the wealth hampers freedom a lot more than allowing people to do as they like with their money (like get rich).

[The Black Forrest]

There is no cure as the rich are the ones who can afford lobbyists. I just don't see rich politicians voting against their own interests.

Crony Capitalism for the win!

[Redenstaat]

Not all communists adhere to a Marxist world-historical outlook; many even reject it explicitly.

All the societies that have, in fact, been communist (to the extent that it's possible to be communist without worldwide communism) would beg to differ.

"Stateless" does not mean "no government."

Many, perhaps even most present-day communists of a Marxist bent would argue that what happened in Russia is not a failure of Marxist world-historical theory, but a failure of the Russian social-democrats (specifically the Bolshevik faction) to, essentially, let history develop itself--in other words, it's not the theory that's bad; Lenin's dudes just made the mistake of trying to rush things.

Explain what you mean by Communism then, and what Communist societies do you mean?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Because the private ownership or unequal distribution of wealth is incompatible with a free society.

I'm pretty sure state ownership of all the wealth hampers freedom a lot more than allowing people to do as they like with their money (like get rich).

The very idea of "their money" is incompatible with a free society.

If we accept that freedom is being able to do what you want (with the usual caveats about harming others, of course), then a social system with private and unequal ownership of wealth means that those who have get to do what they want, while those who have not do not get to do what they want--indeed, the bare necessities of survival force them to do what others want.

Guaranteed equal access to social wealth means that everyone is able to do what s/he wants, and no one is compelled to subordinate themselves to another to obtain the mere material requirements of survival.

So tell me, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because you expect that, once your authoritarian dream is established, the ruling class will grant you a boon as reward for your loyal and slavish service?

Also, who the hell said anything about "state ownership" of anything?

[AiliailiA]

There is no cure as the rich are the ones who can afford lobbyists. I just don't see rich politicians voting against their own interests.

Lobbyists can't force a politician to vote a certain way. Their role traditionally (and usefully) was to try to persuade politicians a certain way. The corruption of the process is in campaign funding

Up to the first million bucks perhaps. That's not really the problem: it's how beyond a certain level of wealth they have to be outright incompetent NOT to get wealthier and wealthier. Just by owning assets which appreciate in value (generally stocks).

I'm thinking a progressive capital gains tax might be called for. Everybody would be encouraged to own some stocks by a low or zero rate on the first $3K a year, rising to the same rate as income tax at the highest bracket.

How is having wealthy people a problem?

If they have that wealth, someone else doesn't.

So much wealth is concentrated in so few hands that there are a hundred million poor people in the US. You can't say they're all lazy and you can't say they can all become rich by luck, skill or hard work though that may be true of any single one of them. Because the structure of capitalism is that if that million people somehow get richer, someone else gets poorer. The poor aren't getting richer, they're getting poorer.

Surely at some extreme you must acknowledge that it's a problem. For instance, if ONE person owned EVERYTHING ... and try to imagine that without assuming that one person would be you (the odds of that are 1 in 7 billion).

[Shallowell]

I'm pretty sure state ownership of all the wealth hampers freedom a lot more than allowing people to do as they like with their money (like get rich).

The very idea of "their money" is incompatible with a free society.

If we accept that freedom is being able to do what you want (with the usual caveats about harming others, of course), then a social system with private and unequal ownership of wealth means that those who have get to do what they want, while those who have not do not get to do what they want--indeed, the bare necessities of survival force them to do what others want.

Guaranteed equal access to social wealth means that everyone is able to do what s/he wants, and no one is compelled to subordinate themselves to another to obtain the mere material requirements of survival.

So tell me, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because you expect that, once your authoritarian dream is established, the ruling class will grant you a boon as reward for your loyal and slavish service?

Also, who the hell said anything about "state ownership" of anything?

You mentioned how private ownership of wealth was bad for society; if it doesn't belong to the people, it belongs to the state, in all effectiveness.

Equal access to wealth means that no one will have to go to extreme ends in pursuit of wealth, which means that innovation will decrease and eventually people will realize that they really don't have to do anything to, as you say, "do what s/he wants," and the economy (and therefore the society) will basically come to a crashing train-wreck halt.

So go right ahead and dream of your socialist, money-free world; meanwhile, I'm going to join real life, and make money so that I can have money.

[AiliailiA]

Because the private ownership or unequal distribution of wealth is incompatible with a free society.

No, it's not.

Yeah, I don't agree with Bluth either. Given private property exists, a moderate inequality of wealth is actually a good thing in my view.

The level of inequality found by study of the Census however, is not moderate. It is alarming.

[Shallowell]

There is no cure as the rich are the ones who can afford lobbyists. I just don't see rich politicians voting against their own interests.

Lobbyists can't force a politician to vote a certain way. Their role traditionally (and usefully) was to try to persuade politicians a certain way. The corruption of the process is in campaign funding

How is having wealthy people a problem?

If they have that wealth, someone else doesn't.

So much wealth is concentrated in so few hands that there are a hundred million poor people in the US. You can't say they're all lazy and you can't say they can all become rich by luck, skill or hard work though that may be true of any single one of them. Because the structure of capitalism is that if that million people somehow get richer, someone else gets poorer. The poor aren't getting richer, they're getting poorer.

Surely at some extreme you must acknowledge that it's a problem. For instance, if ONE person owned EVERYTHING ... and try to imagine that without assuming that one person would be you (the odds of that are 1 in 7 billion).

Bro, sorry to break your bubble, but the poor are definitely getting richer.
The standard of living has been so raised by innovators in the past (Edison, Jobs, etc.), who, might I add, got rich because of their innovations, that what was unheard of or incredibly expensive before has now become immensely cheaper.

For example, back at the Turn of the Century (and by that, I mean the start of the 20th century, no one had TV. Now, TV is a pretty nifty invention, and those who created, and are improving, TVs do quite well in general. Back when TVs were invented, they were rather expensive, to the effect that only the rich could afford them (until cheaper methods of production were invented by those who wished to become rich). This has become so expanded now that almost every single household in America, even those below the nominal poverty line, has at least one TV, and often many more. This would not have been feasible at all back when TV was invented.

Standard of living has risen for all, even in (GASP) a capitalistic society.

[United Kingdom of Muffins]

Some one actually pulled the TV card. I thought it was just a rumor... but... now... I BELIEVE!

[Shallowell]

Some one actually pulled the TV card. I thought it was just a rumor... but... now... I BELIEVE!

You know it.

[Regnum Dominae]

Neither good nor bad.

[AiliailiA]

Lobbyists can't force a politician to vote a certain way. Their role traditionally (and usefully) was to try to persuade politicians a certain way. The corruption of the process is in campaign funding

If they have that wealth, someone else doesn't.

So much wealth is concentrated in so few hands that there are a hundred million poor people in the US. You can't say they're all lazy and you can't say they can all become rich by luck, skill or hard work though that may be true of any single one of them. Because the structure of capitalism is that if that million people somehow get richer, someone else gets poorer. The poor aren't getting richer, they're getting poorer.

Surely at some extreme you must acknowledge that it's a problem. For instance, if ONE person owned EVERYTHING ... and try to imagine that without assuming that one person would be you (the odds of that are 1 in 7 billion).

Bro, sorry to break your bubble, but the poor are definitely getting richer.

Please don't call me "bro".

Let's talk about the last 30 years, and stay focussed on the affordability of NECESSITIES. I couldn't give a damn about luxuries like televisions since all they achieve is to make people into soulless consumers of other people's experience (and usually fictional other people at that).

I don't have much problem with the levels of wealth inequality which prevailed in the 50's and into the 60's in the US. I've said several times that there is an acceptable level of inequality, so don't pretend I'm a communist or something.

Do you acknowledge that wealth inequality in the US is becoming more pronounced over the last decades?

Do you see any level of wealth inequality which would in fact be bad?