Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The harsh reality is that a lot of people are poor because of their own choices. It'd be naive to deny that many people are poor because of factors beyond their control, but if every American had a full-time job, a high school diploma and a spouse there'd be far fewer individuals living below the poverty line. Sauce.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

There are poor people because there are rich people.

You must know a lot about economics.

And you must know a lot about basic algebra and arithmetic to doubt that statement. The amount of money that exists above whatever line translates to money that doesn't below the line.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

It is the nature of capitalism, to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and to continually impoverish an increasing number of people outside that elite.

That's an absurd claim unsupported by statistical evidence. The 'poor' in more economically free countries are far better off than the poor in less economically free countries.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You must know a lot about economics.

And you must know a lot about basic algebra and arithmetic to doubt that statement. The amount of money that exists above whatever line translates to money that doesn't below the line.

Oh, I thought you were repeating the pie fallacy. Carry on.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

It is the nature of capitalism, to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and to continually impoverish an increasing number of people outside that elite.

That's an absurd claim unsupported by statistical evidence. The 'poor' in more economically free countries are far better off than the poor in less economically free countries.

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals. The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

[Hurdegaryp]

Is it not the nature of capitalism for a small group of people to hoard as much money as possible?

No... it isn't.

Your debating skill level, IT'S OVER 9000!!!

Or is it?

[Brickistan]

Wealth has increased - just too bad that it's all gone to the one percent.

See this is a myth that's continually repeated. Wealth has increased across the board, some people have made lots more money (that fabled 1%) and some have made modest amounts of money. Regardless people are richer and living standards have risen.

The gap between the top and the bottom only bothers me if those at the bottom don't have their basic needs met and and unable to live in a dignified way. There is nothing innately good about wealth equality/

I did make a bit of a generalization - guilty as charged.

As far as I recall, it's something like 95% of the recovery post-2008 went to the one percent with the rest going mostly to the upper middle class.

As for wealth equality, I would strongly disagree with you. Complete and utter equality would result in problems, true. But high inequality is even worse as it tends to lead to civil unrest and high crime rates as the poor get increasingly desperate.

I saw some numbers once - but I'll be darn if I can remember where - stating that a difference in pay of about four to fives times between those at the top and those of the bottom was about the highest a society could handle. As you got higher than that, unrest started to increase. But that might have been a blog or an opinion-piece, so take it with a grain of salt...

[Viritica]

That's an absurd claim unsupported by statistical evidence. The 'poor' in more economically free countries are far better off than the poor in less economically free countries.

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals. The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

>destroyed their rivals

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Geilinor]

That's an absurd claim unsupported by statistical evidence. The 'poor' in more economically free countries are far better off than the poor in less economically free countries.

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals. The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

"Economically free" does not have to mean "right-wing capitalism".

[Viritica]

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals. The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

"Economically free" does not have to mean "right-wing capitalism".

Also, this.

[New Acardia]

Most are poor and unable to pay there bills because they choose to spend there money foolishly rather than use it to pay there bills or save it

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals.

No they haven't. Globalisation has given poorer countries the chance to improve their living standards by competing in international markets. India and China would be great examples of this.

The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism

By that logic no slightly poor country could improve itself whatsoever. Chile was a shit-hole before the 1970s, but now it's one of the most prosperous countries in the world. The Eastern European nations that have adopted quite corporatist economic policies have inevitably seen disappointing amounts of progress, but pro-market economies like Poland have seen huge improvements in living standards and general economic conditions.

and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

That's true, but not in the way that you're thinking. It's been ravaged not by 'capitalism', but by a series of sectarian tyrannical governments dating back to colonial times, along with other conditions like war, disease, and terrorism. It's an utter myth that Africa is somehow a pure capitalist continent. Property rights are thin to non-existent in most African nations. But contrary to your anti-market dogma countries that have liberalised their markets in republican conditions are doing great. Botswana has one of the highest growth rates in the world, and extremely high standards of living compared to other nations in the continent because it's adopted vastly pro-trade economic policies.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

A country being more economically free than another one doesn't signify that it's some kind of an anarchist paradise. I can recognise that the Norwegian economy is freer than the Zimbabwean one, for Christ's sakes.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

I like using facts in my arguments. You should try it some time.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals. The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

"Economically free" does not have to mean "right-wing capitalism".

From an absolutist perspective, yes it does.

[Geilinor]

"Economically free" does not have to mean "right-wing capitalism".

From an absolutist perspective, yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

[Connahkstan]

99% of everything here in the states should not be going towards the 1%. It just doesn't seem fair, that 1% Elite should have 1% of stuff, 2% AT MOST. The 99% of things should go towards the 99%, what we need is the end of lasses faire and the reinstitution of real capitalism, California has started to do this, why cant the rest of the states do this? Because most people are willfully ignorant, they are made purposely so by the evil bourgeouisie to maintain the status quo, so that they keep using the so-called "infinite resources"... Man, I am just contributing to the political echo-chamber, I'm gonna go think about this.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Is it not the nature of capitalism for a small group of people to hoard as much money as possible?

And your solution is to give a small group of people control of all the money. >logic

[Geilinor]

The harsh reality is that a lot of people are poor because of their own choices. It'd be naive to deny that many people are poor because of factors beyond their control, but if every American had a full-time job, a high school diploma and a spouse there'd be far fewer individuals living below the poverty line. Sauce.

There aren't enough full-time jobs for every American, or else the unemployment rate would be much lower, some people aren't able to get high-school diplomas for reasons that aren't completely in their control, and everyone doesn't want a spouse.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

From an absolutist perspective, yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

As I said to dear Frisivisia, a social democratic country or a corporatist state is comparably more economically free than a socialist regime, but the true pinnacle of economic freedom would be in a society built on property rights and free of a monopoly on force.

[Greater-London]

I did make a bit of a generalization - guilty as charged.

As far as I recall, it's something like 95% of the recovery post-2008 went to the one percent with the rest going mostly to the upper middle class.

As for wealth equality, I would strongly disagree with you. Complete and utter equality would result in problems, true. But high inequality is even worse as it tends to lead to civil unrest and high crime rates as the poor get increasingly desperate.

People often draw that conclusion but I don't think that's strictly true. For instance if I live in a country where 95% of the population earn £100,000 a year and 5% of the population earn £1 Million a year then do you seriously think those at the bottom would be committing crime or feel desperate?

You get civil unrest and high crime rates when the level of poverty is too high not because the difference is too high. I know I don't speak for everyone but as someone who grew up in low income household and now living as a poor student, what bothers me isn't that the rich are way richer than me its that my living standards are low because of poverty.

[Geilinor]

Is it not the nature of capitalism for a small group of people to hoard as much money as possible?

And your solution is to give a small group of people control of all the money. >logic

Fris never said the government should own everything.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The harsh reality is that a lot of people are poor because of their own choices. It'd be naive to deny that many people are poor because of factors beyond their control, but if every American had a full-time job, a high school diploma and a spouse there'd be far fewer individuals living below the poverty line. Sauce.

There aren't enough full-time jobs for every American, or else the unemployment rate would be much lower,

Of course, but there are still millions of unfilled jobs out there (3 million, to be precise), and you don't need to have a job to create wealth for yourself.

some people aren't able to get high-school diplomas for reasons that aren't completely in their control,

I know, but this is not the fault of capitalism, but the fault of parents.

and everyone doesn't want a spouse.

Yes but if you've got double the amount of income coming into your household you'd be far better off.

[Geilinor]

No, it doesn't.

a society built on property rights and free of a monopoly on force.

Contradictory statements, aren't those fun? Property rights are secure when there is a judicial system and a police force to protect those rights.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

That's because the "economically free" countries have systematically dominated and destroyed their rivals.

No they haven't. Globalisation has given poorer countries the chance to improve their living standards by competing in international markets. India and China would be great examples of this.

The second world never had a chance after the collapse of authoritarian communism

By that logic no slightly poor country could improve itself whatsoever. Chile was a shit-hole before the 1970s, but now it's one of the most prosperous countries in the world. The Eastern European nations that have adopted quite corporatist economic policies have inevitably seen disappointing amounts of progress, but pro-market economies like Poland have seen huge improvements in living standards and general economic conditions.

and the third world has been systematically raped since the 15th century.

That's true, but not in the way that you're thinking. It's been ravaged not by 'capitalism', but by a series of sectarian tyrannical governments dating back to colonial times, along with other conditions like war, disease, and terrorism. It's an utter myth that Africa is somehow a pure capitalist continent. Property rights are thin to non-existent in most African nations. But contrary to your anti-market dogma countries that have liberalised their markets in republican conditions are doing great. Botswana has one of the highest growth rates in the world, and extremely high standards of living compared to other nations in the continent because it's adopted vastly pro-trade economic policies.

You're also counting social democracies as "economically free", which, while technically true, violates your dog-whistle, because "economically free" is clearly meant to signify "right-wing capitalism", while the same is not true in practice.

A country being more economically free than another one doesn't signify that it's some kind of an anarchist paradise. I can recognise that the Norwegian economy is freer than the Zimbabwean one, for Christ's sakes.

You're not just wrong, you're also intellectually dishonest and you should feel bad about that.

I like using facts in my arguments. You should try it some time.

I'm not talking about globalization, I'm talking about the real, lasting scars from colonialism and how the third world was still set back hard by the rape.

You're not showing me trends or evidence.

I never said the third world was ravaged by capitalism. The old colonial powers switched to capitalism post-rape and capitalism has been a tool which, while helpful in letting poorer countries become somewhat less poor, was also instrumental in keeping them down. Capitalism isn't a magic tool that brings money in stride, the only reason countries do better than others is resources.

I know, but you're obviously trying to trigger ideas with your words, and I think you're being dishonest with your terminology.

I dunno, I'm experiencing a distinct lack of source in your supposedly "fact-based" "argument".

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

And your solution is to give a small group of people control of all the money. >logic

Fris never said the government should own everything.

But it's what he believes.

[Greater-London]

99% of everything here in the states should not be going towards the 1%. It just doesn't seem fair, that 1% Elite should have 1% of stuff, 2% AT MOST. The 99% of things should go towards the 99%, what we need is the end of lasses faire and the reinstitution of real capitalism, California has started to do this, why cant the rest of the states do this? Because most people are willfully ignorant, they are made purposely so by the evil bourgeouisie to maintain the status quo, so that they keep using the so-called "infinite resources"... Man, I am just contributing to the political echo-chamber, I'm gonna go think about this.

What do you define as real capitalism? What capitalism enforces that the top 1% of the population gets 1% of 'stuff', surely they should be free to accumulate capital to their hearts content?