said by broadbander :

What percentage of those wealthy families date back more than 2 generations, WMarkHall?

When was their wealth consolidated?

said by Ahrenl :

There are some very fat tails on that upper 20%, and the number of families joining their group has been growing faster than ever before. Which translates to MORE opportunity to those that have the ability and some luck to seize it.

Middle class crumbs seem to include plasma TV's, 3 vehicles, spacious houses, and enough sustenance to make most of us obese. Yeah, it sucks to work for your living, but most people have to do it, because of the scarcity of resources, and it will always be so.

The poor are mostly made up of new immigrants, the disenfranchised, and then the truly disheartening "taken advantage of". I don't think we should be issuing bags of money with green cards, I have very little sympathy for those who don't work because it's hard to get a job; and the last portion is why we have social welfare programs, and is what we need to continue to work on. Overall, though, it's MUCH better than any time in the last 5,000 years. There's a reason why poor people the world over flood into this country, it's not because it's better every where else.

said by calvoiper :

OK--I see your point. You think that society is better off with less of a "wage gap" even if everybody makes less money.

By this logic, North Korea is a workers' paradise--there is almost no "wage gap" at all among 99.9% of the people. They are all dirt poor.

I fail to see what motivates people who think that a society where everybody suffers is better just because fewer are "rich".

calvoiper

said by Ahrenl :

Please provide a system better than capitalism for raising the standard of living for mankind.

We haven't found a perfect system, they all have draw backs, and that doesn't mean we should stop looking. But it would be a step backwards right now to move towards any of the alternative socio-economic systems available.

Socialism/Communism don't work. Somebody has to do the work, and if everyone is compensated equally everyone will try to minimize the portion of work that they have to complete so that society advances. Eventually this rewards those who are best at avoiding work the most, as they will be compensated at a higher rate per unit of labor. (since we're all paid the same, but they're doing less).

There are some extremely over paid individuals in our society, and I think some real progress has been started by out raged investors on this front to curtail this abuse. (eg Home Depot) That doesn't mean we scrap the whole system, corruption exists everywhere; at least there's some recourse in our society..

said by KoolMoe :

I agree Captialism is best but it MUST be regulated. The real question is to what degree. Without any regulation, we see the same greed and self-interest issues as with other systems coming into greater play to destroy the equal benefits. Laissez-faire does NOT work and is just as destructive as Communism.
KM

said by broadbander :

I'm aware, but the difference is irrelevant to the efficiency of capitalism. A growing wage gap is not a negative thing if the growth of median GDP can maintain for it. The alternative is a system in which wealth grows very slowly or doesn't grow at all, so the wage gap may be less, but everyone is poorer (including the poor).

A. My example of the sugar industry was sarcasm meant to expose one facet of the lie that is our own 'Free Market'.

Not to mention they'll wage war as economic stimulus. And BTW, this is a mixed economy riding on the hairy behind of a nearly-shot republic, not a democracy. But that's another issue

C. I'm not a follow of Che, but you *appear* to know little of his history other than the popular elitist version.

D. I didn't mention the poor; I said the wage gap. There's a huge difference, check into it.

There's but one example of your 'free market' in action.

Sh*t, the US govt is the marketing capital of buzzwords

I won't EVEN take the religious bait; I've been down that dark road before, and I've explained the 'Che' thing before, and it isn't what you think, and I don't want to digress down that path.

Then which of the two do you think is occurring now if not the centralization of wealth? Have you looked at the numbers? And how is it that we have one tax CUT after another yet the income gap is growing at a rate not seen since the gilded age? I'll say it again: textbook economics reads like junk science and the lingua franca of the ruling class when juxtaposed with the reality of human greed and ITS influence on all we know and experience day to day.

said by broadbander :

Describe what/when you're referring too and what governments are involved in the process. If governments are involved in the supply or demand side, then the market isn't free in ANY way. Any labor force being exploited by "capitalism" is probably being exploited primarily by their own government. Fascism works with particular pieces of a market to help form state-sanctioned monopoly (hardly a free market function). Communism, rather than give profit to the workers, simply cuts the labor part of the cost of production out entirely, essentially creating a capitalist society with a serf class (that has no hope of breaking that distinction).

---
From: »www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_05···cle.html

"The sugar industry in America has never really operated in a free market. Cane sugar in Florida wouldn’t exist if the state government hadn’t drained the Everglades. It would disappear if the Army Corps of Engineers didn’t permanently alter the landscape and manage it at taxpayer expense to expose the muck soil and keep the water level just right for the growers.

Washington also provides subsidies to all sugar farmers in the form of loans collateralized by sugar—about 18 cents per pound. The world price of sugar is usually around 10 cents per pound or less, but the federal government also drastically limits sugar imports, ensuring a domestic price of about twice that. Uncle Sam also subsidizes private sugar storage facilities."

There's but one example of your 'free market' in action.
---

The history of "exploited peoples" is a history of corrupted persons, not corrupt economies. An evil person in charge of a government is 100X more dangerous than an evil person in charge of a corporation (which is oxymoron, it is impossible to completely "be in charge" of a corporation in a theoretical sense, because of supply and demand).

---

Most of history IS "exploited peoples" -- exploited by the powerful for more power. It continues today in every form imaginable. We just witnessed 'free' elections in Mexico where the US had its hands all over the process. Nothing like this 'freedom' thing in the whole world. Someone accused me of using buzzwords. Sh*t, the US govt is the marketing capital of buzzwords -- freedom being the biggest chainsaw on the block.

---
As for Che, well, any fellow who wanted primarily to destroy the existence of myself and those around me is not okay in my book or anyone to follow.

Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Douglass ... these are history's heroes regardless of their political/religious affiliations. Militant ideologists of any stripe are not(read Che's comments on the Cuban missile crisis and try to earnestly support him or what he represents in anyway).

---
I won't EVEN take the religious bait; I've been down that dark road before, and I've explained the 'Che' thing before, and it isn't what you think, and I don't want to digress down that path.

---

Certainly, in particular markets, regulation can help ensure safety and bring about competitive behavior that protects consumers in some way. However, I contend that over-regulation (i.e. government control of important industries) is far more disastrous than the converse (a completely free market). And centralizing wealth (a.k.a. high federal taxes) is an invitation for just that.

---

Then which of the two do you think is occurring now if not the centralization of wealth? Have you looked at the numbers? And how is it that we have one tax CUT after another yet the income gap is growing at a rate not seen since the gilded age? I'll say it again: textbook economics reads like junk science and the lingua franca of the ruling class when juxtaposed with the reality of human greed and ITS influence on all we know and experience day to day.

said by Titus Pullo :

Something as simple as the U.S. sugar market is a pretty good example of a 'free' market in action.

said by broadbander :

The freer the market, the cheaper the price (so long as cross-subidization is not involved).

Illegal markets are the best example.

Witness pirated technologies, stolen clothing goods or squater-farmed land and witness theory becoming reality.

said by Old Buzzard :

Sorry, but I just can't take economic advice from someone with a Che avatar seriously. :uhh:

Especially when it's mostly buzzwords with little backing.

said by Ahrenl :

Yes, you're debating skills are unparalleled. Again, simply stating something that's greatly accepted is a fallacy is not a discussion or debate.

said by Ahrenl :

Pay for a college education and learn it for yourself. There are reams of books written about it, although most of it is common sense. I have better things to do with my life than educate you on base theories of society. Just saying something that is accepted by 99.9% of the world isn't true, isn't a basis for a discussion.

said by Titus Pullo :

Don't thank God; explain to us the oxymoron that is the "free market" and make your case.

said by Ahrenl :

Oh, how enlightening. I guess we'll have to go and rewrite The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Thank god we have you..

said by Titus Pullo :

There's no such thing as a 'free' market. When are people going to realize this and quit throwing the phrase around as if it means something? Neo-liberal trade policies promote anything BUT a market that inspires free trade. Getting 'govt off the back of business' is simple code for giving away the farm to business interests, period.

said by itguy05 :

We've seen the same thing with Cell Phones - There are 3-5 companies in an area and guess what? All are roughly the same price for the same minutes.

said by broadbander :

Look to the East. Regulation is reasonable in some markets.

said by itguy05 :

Surprise Surprise.... Just goes to show "competition" is merely a panacea that makes us THINK prices will go down.

said by itguy05 :

Surprise Surprise.... Just goes to show "competition" is merely a panacea that makes us THINK prices will go down.

In almost every case, competition does nothing to prices over the long run. You see, if company X can sell product A for $100 and make Z profit, why would I sell Product A for $50 and make $50-Z profit when I know the market will support the $100 price? That would be stupid.

We've seen the same thing with Cell Phones - There are 3-5 companies in an area and guess what? All are roughly the same price for the same minutes.

Competition is pretty much a farce and almost never results in largely reduced prices for consumers.

Just wait till all the IPTV and FiOS customers get their bills in year 2 and realize they are paying almost as much as cable.....

said by itguy05 :

Just wait till all the IPTV and FiOS customers get their bills in year 2 and realize they are paying almost as much as cable.....