@brainbomb

"A. I am an american living in what is 'allegedly' capitalism."

IT'S NOT PURELY CAPITALIST! it's EXTREMELY Government regulated markets systems.

"B. America is actually much much closer to Fuedalism with regards to money."

no because feudalism had political control, whereas we have laws specifically outlawing such corruption. even if it still occurs, our structure is far from one that promotes feudalism.

"Wealthy families tend to stay wealthy from generation to generation."

actually we still have a decent degree of income mobility. it's not as great as Europe, but those guys PURPOSEFULLY redistribute money to make their numbers look good. even with our government helping to prop up through subsidies massive companies, we still have many rich falling out of favor

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015061pap.pdf

the top 20% of income earners see 11% decline by 50%+, 14% decline by 25-50%, and 32% decline by 25% to 0%

that's 57% of the Top quintile in the United states going down fairly significantly after ONE generation.

it's not the EXACT SAME families in the top 1% either, it's simply the same amount of wealth, changing hands.

hell, the LOWEST 20% of income earners, see 66% increase their earnings, and over half of that is in the upper bounds (50%+ increase) of that.

"Rich people will argue its because rich people are smarter and harder working. (Is this actually true or does the system favor people who can afford accountants/have investments and understand how to beat the system."

by "system" do you mean GOVERNMENT INTRUSION????

"C. How do you create a truer capitalism?"

freedom

"Democrats would argue that the givernment can both directly and indirectly create jobs through a gamut of options."

unfortunately, millions voted for Bernie, who chose "socialism" as his option for how to fix capitalism.

"Republicans-would focus on the hope lowering rich peoples taxes motivates them and frees them up to hire more."

Republicans are a lot more assholey than that though.

"Libertarians seem to believe that personal wealth is an extension of rights given to all people. And finally Anarchists just want to see everything descend into chaos"

no... libertarians sat that personal wealth has been corrupted by government, so that it isn't an extension of basic human rights any longer. but the ideal, you are correct with.

"No Yanik said my right to live in my country was that I unquestionably accepted all aspects of capitalism and if I didnt my citizenship should be forfeit. Im saying im allowed to have a fucking opinion because im every bit as much an American as anyone else."

i know @brainbomb, but let's say i wake up and want to create a purely 100% communist state. is it more prudent if i

A. force people in this country to go against the founding principles?

or

B. go to a place where they like communism, like some small areas in israel, and in parts of europe?

i'm saying if you like socialism, it's better pursued in other places (where rights aren't written into laws, and people have been arrested on their speech) like europe

@Yanik

"actually we still have a decent degree of income mobility. it's not as great as Europe, but those guys PURPOSEFULLY redistribute money to make their numbers look good."

I don't think the main cause is redistribution. The cause was the world war that wiped out a lot of the rich middle class, which never happened in America. Maybe brainbomb would like that method. War, the great leveler.

@Zmaj

no but conservatives are the one who like to kill people and wage war DONT CHALLENGE MY THOUGHTS REEEEEEEEEEEEE

We had a great leveler. It was the Great Depression. Wealthy people shot themselves and jumped out of buildings out of shame for failure.

Now if a company goes under theyre filing bankruptcy in moments. Look at goldman sachs and the others that nearly wiped our economy clean. Did they show any shame? Fuck no they had their hands out beggin for mercy.

I met a guy who started 5 businesses. Hes about 36 years old and divorced. Every single business he tried to make failed. He keeps trying. Keeps going bankrupt. What is this shit honestly?

@brainbomb

"Wealthy people shot themselves and jumped out of buildings out of shame for failure."

Yeah, that was totally cool. But the fact is, those guys in the Depression knew the state wouldn't help them.

"He keeps trying. Keeps going bankrupt. What is this shit honestly?"

A hobby?

We needed a bit more hazard during the Great Recession. Republicans bailed everyone out with TARP.

Why are you arguing with brainbomb? Most of what hey says either make so sense, is said to provoke a response or is for humor, unless he is drunk or mad at the latest squeeze. Furthermore, people who have nothing care for nothing.

Wtf are you even saying

"Freedom from familial obligations."

I come from a different culture than you, ora, and where I am from filial piety is a mark of character. Children should absolutely be obligated to return the work their parents took to raise them. Social security is just another attack on the nuclear family by the left.

If people are obligated to do something, how can their forced act be a mark of character?

Character shines through in the choices we make, not the choices others make for us.

@steephie

Leon expressed himself awkwardly, I guess, but it's stupid to take what he said literally. You're not helping the discussion.

@"I met a guy who started 5 businesses. Hes about 36 years old and divorced. Every single business he tried to make failed. He keeps trying. Keeps going bankrupt. What is this shit honestly?"

This is actually one of the most vital, industrious and useful things about the US.

9 out of 10 businesses fail, and yet laws and attitudes allow people start again and learn from their failures, go on to fail better. This is the kind of psychological encouragement which is the envy of the world.

Even a rampant socialist like me appreciates it. It is not these small failed businesses, the ones which tried but never got off the ground, it is not them who are responcible for the massive wealth inequality. Any socialist country would be pretty damn smart to encourage this kind of creativity and industriousnous. Ireland's population are, by-and-large far too cynical in attitude (thiugh there is a lack of healthy cynicism in the US). And that is one major economic factor distinguishing the two countries (despite many cultural similarities).

I have to commend 'this guy you met'.

@JK

"We needed a bit more hazard during the Great Recession. Republicans bailed everyone out with TARP."

yeah that was 100% ONLY REPUBLICANS.

right.

yes.

Obama is god.

@"leon1122 (183 D)
09:35 AM
+1
"Freedom from familial obligations."

I come from a different culture than you, ora, and where I am from filial piety is a mark of character. Children should absolutely be obligated to return the work their parents took to raise them. Social security is just another attack on the nuclear family by the left."

Obligation is not love. Families are stronger for having the choice to support one another, not by force, social convention, or any other means should they be kept together.

Freedom is suppose to be 'part of the american way'.

My only criticism of this freedom, is that it is actually capitalism, corporate consumerism, which facilitates familes living as single units, each in their own home, with their own washing machines etc. This is the main forces freeing families from obligation (along with work which is not dependent on a family member).

And corporations would be happy to service any requirement those smaller familial units have. So from housing, to food prep, to transport, corporation would love to make us entirely dependent on them rather than have us using familial connections to provide for these needs.

Of course massively increased productivity means people can live alone, huge economic growth has resulted in automation - and also sex bots - so we can reduce further our 'family unit' to just the individual; and consummerist society will manage to sell individual computers, televisions, phones, cars, and apartments to every single person, 'growing' the economy.

Of course wheremore services are consumed, instead of being provided by family members, the same amount of activity may occur, but more of it is paid to corporations, rather than being done voluntarily by family. So the economy has not actually grown - only the part of the economy which are measurable by financial transactions have (ie all the children are still being minded, but now they have professional childcare workers, rsther than parents/uncles/aunts...).

This is the biggest lie of capitalism. But sure, blame government support for social systems if that makes you happy.

@orathaic

You're contradicting yourself.

"all the children are still being minded, but now they have professional childcare workers, rather than parents/uncles/aunts"

Freely available professional childcare workers are a feature of socialism, not capitalism. In fact, it's socialism that promotes a heavy reliance on society instead of the family.

In pure capitalism, if you fail, you have only your family to rely on, which makes the family bonds stronger.

In pure socialism, there are unemployment benefits, social services, health care etc. etc., so who needs a family?

@JamesYanik:
"yeah that was 100% ONLY REPUBLICANS.

right."

I never said it was, but I did say that the Republicans had a lot to do with it.

If you're such a libertarian, then when someone makes a point about the profligacy of either main party, you should support the statement. Otherwise, you're undermining your own cause.

@JK

nice spin, but i openly blame BOTH parties for their role in refunding the banks. Republicans started it, and Obama took office and increased it.

the difference between you and me is that i don't have to be Corrected until i admit both parties messed up on that one. if i hadn't spoken up, would you have made that addendum?

if someone says "Hitler was awful in world war II" i can be perfectly justified in saying that the Italians and Japanese were also horrific in that war as well, and that does NOT automatically mean i am giving Hitler a pass.

@JY: Democrats have no problem "admitting" that Obama did massive rounds of quantitative easing. Why? Because liberals think that it was a proper response to save the economy considering obstruction by the incalcitrant, do-nothing Republican Congress.

Republicans and fiscal conservatives are the ones with the problem admitting that they STARTED it with TARP. That's why it needs to be pointed out. There's hypocrisy that they need to be reminded of at every opportunity.

To put it another way, Republicans can't talk out both sides of their mouths. They absolutely were complicit in all attempts to save the economy. They said some things politically, but their actions showed something entirely different. The House merely scored political points, while the Senate made sure NOTHING happened because Republican solutions were (and are) so terribly thought out.

don't equate Republicans and fiscal conservatives, there was definitely a large contingent that did not support Bush during TARP

but if this will help ease your mind: the democrats were idiots, the republicans were hypocrites, screw both of them

@Yanik

"the Italians and Japanese were also horrific in that war as well"

The Italians were horrific? The Italians?! You're giving them waaay too much credit as villains...

@Zmaj

That war was hell... the Italian peninsula, driving back the germans... all the good pizza toppings were gone. THEY HAD TO.

they had to put pineapples and anchovies on their pizzas.

those poor souls

@yanik wrote "if someone says "Hitler was awful in world war II" i can be perfectly justified in saying that the Italians and Japanese were also horrific in that war as well, and that does NOT automatically mean i am giving Hitler a pass."

Well, it kinda does because you support a moral equivalency. You give Hitler a pass to the extent he was so much WORSE. Likewise, saying a pix on both their houses (Dems and Repubs) ignores the extraordinary damage that Bush did to the economy and what Trump campaigned for.

@yanik, to be clear you can say italy was horrible in the war but you must contextualize it by acknowledging that the Nazis were so much worse, else you look like a Hitler sympathizer. Who else would talk about the horror of WWII and omit the worst offenders?

Sean Spicer.

@Hauta

1. in no way is that a moral equivalency, that is an omission

2. but it's not even really an omission, because @JK had ALREADY hit at Republicans. so i replied

"yeah that was 100% ONLY REPUBLICANS."

obviously sarcastic, i'm also not letting the Republicans off the hook.

the WWII metaphor wasn't perfect, but if someone is to say that Germany committed all these atrocities, i'm well within my rights to point out what Japan did in China as well.

the problem with the metaphor is that obviously nobody has a support for either the Nazis or the Italians in WWII, and thus you should stop reading into the metaphor past that point (which you did)

the problem here is that @JK only pushed the blame for reaction to the financial crash of 2008 onto Republicans, when Democrats under Obama directly gave more money away, where they'd be able to stop it if they wanted to.'

also"

"You give Hitler a pass to the extent he was so much WORSE"

is debatable, you need to read up on the Japanese.

"Likewise, saying a pix on both their houses (Dems and Repubs) ignores the extraordinary damage that Bush did to the economy and what Trump campaigned for."

except
1. the Democrats were responsible for most of the payments after 2008, so making them morally equivalent is an insult to Republicans.
2. the subprime mortgage industry had been around since the 80s and both parties failed to see it coming

"@yanik, to be clear you can say italy was horrible in the war but you must contextualize it by acknowledging that the Nazis were so much worse, else you look like a Hitler sympathizer. Who else would talk about the horror of WWII and omit the worst offenders?"

backtrack, i said JAPAN and Italy. Italy was more of an afterthought, and i'll definitely admit that was bad, but to say that Hitler was SO MUCH WORSE than Japan isn't historically accurate.

this isn't a matter of ME omitting the worst offenders, you obviously haven't studied as much as me about WWII and the pacific campaigns, the Japanese were just as genocidal as Hitler, and they kill 4 million more people than Germany.


I'm noticing a trend wth you @Hauta, your ideals aren't always wrong, but many of your perceptions about history and the world are.

@"
Freely available professional childcare workers are a feature of socialism, not capitalism. In fact, it's socialism that promotes a heavy reliance on society instead of the family."

I said nothing of freely available childcare, i was refering to private companies offering this service - which is a feature of capitalistic/corporate societies.

@orathaic

That's not the point. I argued that socialism is worse for the family than capitalism.