Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 13    Average: 2.5/5]
63 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4712
Rating: 2.5
Category:
Date: 01/21/14 12:59 PM

63 Responses to 85 People As Wealthy As Poorest 3.5 Billion [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm
    Link: 85 People As Wealthy As Poorest 3.5 Billion - Wait, what? That can`t possibly be right.
  2. Profile photo of CynicalGamer
    CynicalGamer Male 40-49
    450 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 1:08 pm
    I can`t wait till this number is whittled down to only a few and we burn their entire empire to the ground. HI NSA!!!!
  3. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 1:08 pm
    Africa`s population has gone from 200 million to over a billion in just a few decades. That`s how this happens, it`s not rocket science.

    But the last few decades of Capitalism has coincided with the greatest period of wealth creation in human history, as well as a beginning towards the eradication of poverty. Even in Africa.
  4. Profile photo of ajd121
    ajd121 Male 18-29
    625 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 1:34 pm
    Ok but lets say there are 1 Billion people who don`t use/have any money, then a homeless guy who finds a a quarter on the street would then be considered richer than a billion people combined.
  5. Profile photo of CodeJockey
    CodeJockey Male 40-49
    5606 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm
    "...homeless guy who finds a a quarter on the street would then be considered richer than a billion people combined."
    You have been awarded ten free internets...
  6. Profile photo of Rizzo71
    Rizzo71 Male 40-49
    427 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    I think it`s time for some heads to roll.
  7. Profile photo of mustang22
    mustang22 Female 30-39
    50 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    It depends on how the rich guys made their money. If they earned it (the right way) and worked hard for it, then they deserve what they get. Besides, people like Bill Gates donate more than what I`m sure many of the 3.5B people would if they were in his position.

    On the other hand, I`m sure many of the 85 are scoundrels and don`t deserve a lot of their fortune. I think they are the ones everyone should be giving the evil eye to.
  8. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:13 pm
    So if we took all the money from the 85 richest people and divided it equally among the 3.5 billion poorest people, we could give them all $471.43.

    The problem is, you can only do that once. What are you going to do next month?
  9. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm
    Hey Holygod haven`t seen you around here in a while!
  10. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:29 pm
    Poor people should work harder.
  11. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm
    Conservatives have a strange way of showing empathy.
  12. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:33 pm
    OldOllie

    "The problem is, you can only do that once. What are you going to do next month?"

    Absolutely. That would be a bad solution. Well, NO solution, obviously.

    However what you COULD do, theoretically, is take 10% of the wealth of the top 1% or around $10 trillion and put it to work.

    That would be more than enough money to setup clean water, and sanitation, renewable energy, efficient farming, education, healthcare, and vaccinations that would reach over 75% of that 3.5 Billion.

    Not saying we should, but we could. Saying that just handing them all cash is the only alternative to the EXTREME wealth inequality is just sorta asinine.

  13. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm
    normalfreak2

    "Hey Holygod haven`t seen you around here in a while!"

    I gave it up for a few months. Was too much of a time suck.

    I`ve made 4,000+ posts on here. If I say each comment took 5 minutes on average between reading source material and researching then that is 2 weeks of my life spent arguing on this site.
  14. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    Amen, normalfreak2.

    Welcome back, HolyGod! You were missed. :-)
  15. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 4:50 pm
    @HG However what you COULD do, theoretically, is take 10% of the wealth of the top 1% or around $10 trillion and put it to work.
    So, what do you think the top 1% are doing with that money, wallowing in it naked? They are putting it to work, and by their success, they have proven that they are more competent at putting their money to work than any damned "People`s Committee."
  16. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36182 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    Ollie " by their success, they have proven that they are more competent at putting their money to work "
    Yeah, those Walmart hairs are so much smarter than the rest of us. They were smart enough to be born rich. Paris Hilton, yep, that`s a real financial genius for you.
  17. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 5:06 pm
    OldOllie

    "So, what do you think the top 1% are doing with that money, wallowing in it naked? They are putting it to work, and by their success, they have proven that they are more competent at putting their money to work than any damned "People`s Committee."

    Putting their money to work for THEMSELVES, sure.

    Anyone in the top 1% has more money than they could ever spend. Taking 10% out of that pool would change nothing.

    You believe this glorious myth that every penny the rich have is put to work building the economy and employing people. Bulls.hit. There is billions spent virtually wallowing naked in wealth that benefits VERY few.

    Maybe you don`t know any rich people. I grew up with them.
  18. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    Here is the thing:

    There are enough resources in the world for every human being to have adequate shelter, food, clean water, healthcare and access to education.

    There just IS.

    To me the fact that we can ensure that every human being has, what I consider to be, basic human rights, and don`t, is morally reprehensible.

    The problem is a fair portion of this country has been brainwashed that "everyone has equal opportunity" to "pull themselves up by their boot straps". You just have to go borrow $20k from your parents to start a business like anyone can.

    Ideas like helping other people are socialism and dirty and communist and un-american. That is just marketing by the people at the top who don`t want to relinquish any of their money no matter who it helps.
  19. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    "Socialism never took root in america because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"

    - John Steinbeck
  20. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:14 pm
    @HG

    Firstly, welcome back.

    Taking 10% out of that pool would change nothing.
    This would change everything. A new precedent would be set that we can now discriminate against and pillage those people that politicians determine to be rich.

    If someone has acquired their wealth through coercion, then that is a matter for the justice system. However, taking the wealth from someone who has previously followed all of the rules simply because they have it is a terrifying proposition.

    Another perspective is that we would be transferring wealth from a select few elite people into the hands of a select few elite people in order to redistribute it to the masses. Never in the history of mankind has this been successful, and not for lack of trying.
  21. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm
    HA

    "we can now discriminate against and pillage those people that politicians determine to be rich."

    Again, we are talking "THEORETICALLY" I`m not advocating anything. If I did it would be a worldwide tax and it would not be a cutoff at a set number it would be on a sliding scale.

    "taking the wealth from someone... is a terrifying proposition."

    That is what taxes are. No?

    "we would be transferring wealth from a select few elite people into the hands of a select few elite people in order to redistribute it to the masses. Never in the history of mankind has this been successful"

    Again, is that not what taxes are?

    Somewhere in america a child will go to bed without being hungry only because the government took money from the rich and redistributed it to his mother in the form of food assistance.

    To me that is a good thing.
  22. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm
    @HolyGod

    Again, is that not what taxes are?
    No, it isn`t. Taxes are placed on consumption or income. The only tax I can think of that taxes wealth is the property tax, which is only allowed due to its being intertwined with public education.

    You`re - theoretically - promoting taxing wealth.

    To me that is a good thing.
    I know it`s been awhile, but we`ve done this. We both want starving children to have food to eat. We both want everyone to be healthy, fed, housed, clothed, and have a decent income.

    Where we differ is in our opinions of the methods best suited to reach that goal.
  23. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:39 pm
    As I see it, redistributionists want to take money from all of us, transfer it to the hands of a select few rich people, and hope they don`t spend it dropping bombs on sand.

    I`ve just never seen that happen. Call me cynical if you will, but all of my past experiences (not to mention every redistributionist experiment in history) suggest that it just won`t happen. Instead, we`ll all be out of money, and some CEO from the hip new thing (Insurance, Banks, Auto, Green Energy) will end up with it.

    No thanks - just let me decide who I want to give my money to.
  24. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:51 pm
    HA

    "I know it`s been awhile, but we`ve done this. We both want starving children to have food to eat. We both want everyone to be healthy, fed, housed, clothed, and have a decent income."

    But to me that is more important than the right of people to horde as much wealth as they possibly can. To you it isn`t.

    "Where we differ is in our opinions of the methods best suited to reach that goal."

    What is your method? Just let the free market decide? If that is your solution than it isn`t any different than what we have now and I wouldn`t call it a solution.

    "I`ve just never seen that happen. Call me cynical if you will"

    Well OBVIOUSLY if we assume that any people in power will corrupt a system then any system will fail.

    If I argue FOR food stamps I`m not arguing FOR food stamp abuse, government waste, bureaucracy, fraud, etc.
  25. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:51 pm
    @HG

    To you it isn`t.
    Well I would word it a little differently, but yes. I think that the right of people to be secure from a government that can - at any point in time - take their assets is more important than the right of a government to arbitrarily take the assets of citizens.

    It`s kind of like playing Monopoly; there are rules, and some people get ahead because they`re better players, or even because they simply were lucky.

    What you`re suggesting, is to - halfway through the game - change the rules because you`ve gotten behind. That`s just not fair.

    I`m not arguing FOR food stamp abuse
    Sure, but if that`s the inevitable outcome, what`s the difference? Surely it`s only semantic.
  26. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 7:57 pm
    HA

    "What you`re suggesting, is to - halfway through the game - change the rules because you`ve gotten behind. That`s just not fair."

    It isn`t a game. It is life and death.

    You ever been to a third world country? You ever done any volounteer work in places like africa or central america? I have. You see kids so skinny that you can see their heartbeat through their ribs and you know that they will never see 20. Not because they made bad choices or did anything wrong, just because of where they happened to be born.

    So to say you think they should die because it would be MORE amoral to tell someone that has billions of dollars, either earned or inherited, that they have to give up a small percentage to save a few billion lives and THEN compare that struggle to a board game is the kind of callousness for basic human life that keeps me from being a true libertarian.
  27. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:02 pm
    @HG

    It isn`t a game. It is life and death.
    C`mon, aren`t you being a little dramatic? It was a harmless analogy. The point is that people got ahead by following those rules. Now, you want to go back and yank that away. Sorry, that`s not right.

    A starving child doesn`t suddenly give me moral authority to do something immoral.
  28. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:10 pm
    HA

    "C`mon, aren`t you being a little dramatic? It was a harmless analogy. The point is that people got ahead by following those rules. Now, you want to go back and yank that away. Sorry, that`s not right."

    Some people are born with billions of dollars. Some people are born with NOTHING. Which part of the monopoly rules sets that up?

    Let`s play monopoly. I start with every property and all the money. You start with nothing. The loser dies. THAT is the analogy.

    If everyone started even, then yes, by all means.
  29. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:24 pm
    @HG

    This can`t possibly be the same HolyGod as before.

    My point is this, in our world, we have rules. Some people have managed to get ahead while still following those rules. Now, you want to retroactively change those rules (that`s what a wealth tax does) to punish those people, despite the fact that they followed the rules in the first place.

    That`s immoral. Starving children don`t allow me to suddenly cast aside my principles and morals. Perhaps they do in your case.

    I wouldn`t punch an old lady in the face to get food for a starving child. I wouldn`t steal a baby to get food for a starving child. I wouldn`t steal a car to get food for a starving child.

    Why? Because those things are wrong; they are immoral. There are no circumstances that suddenly make immoral things magically become moral.
  30. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:37 pm
    Anyone in the top 1% has more money than they could ever spend. Taking 10% out of that pool would change nothing.

    You believe this glorious myth that every penny the rich have is put to work building the economy and employing people. Bulls.hit. There is billions spent virtually wallowing naked in wealth that benefits VERY few.
    Actually, taking 10% would hurt a lot, but it wouldn`t hurt the 1%. It would hurt the business who are currently using that money for productive purposes such as expansion and hiring. We know that by giving it over to the government, it will be either consumed or lost.

    But you do have me wondering, how do the rich invest their money so that it only benefits themselves? Seriously, name some of those investments because I honestly have absolutely no idea what you`re talking about.
  31. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:37 pm
    HA

    "This can`t possibly be the same HolyGod as before."

    expound...

    "That`s immoral. Starving children don`t allow me to suddenly cast aside my principles and morals."

    Degrees. Is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread from a store? Yes. Is it more immoral than a child starving to death? No.

    If you take someone who has $10 Billion and you take $1 Billion their life wouldn`t change in any way. They wouldn`t even have to adjust their lifestyle. Meanwhile that $ Billion could be the difference between life and death for millions who need malaria medicine.

    You can look at that scenario and say, well, on principle it is wrong to save millions of lives without adversely affecting anyone. That is SHOCKING to me.

    Maybe you should travel and see some people struggling to survive. Might make it so they aren`t just stats and game pieces in your mind.
  32. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    OldOllie

    "But you do have me wondering, how do the rich invest their money so that it only benefits themselves? Seriously, name some of those investments because I honestly have absolutely no idea what you`re talking about."

    There is that myth again. Do you REALLY believe that rich people have all their money invested in the economy?

    According to the IMF there is $18 TRILLION dollars squirreled away in off shore bank accounts. Who exactly is that helping?

    When someone buys a $150 Million painting, or a $500 Million Private Island the only people that benefit are the the people who sold it and the few people getting a commission for facilitating the sale.

    Not all rich people`s money is invested. You are delusional.
  33. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:05 pm
    @HG

    expound...
    Sure. See, the old HG had a capacity to reason through things whereas this one seems to be an emotional disaster. You`re not making principled arguments and your argument depends on some terrible circumstance.

    You wouldn`t think it is OK to steal the wealth of rich people if children weren`t starving. Therefore, your entire "moral" aspect is nonsense. If something is moral, it is so in all circumstances.

    They wouldn`t even have to adjust their lifestyle.
    If I take your right pinky, you wouldn`t really need to adjust; you wouldn`t lose an functionality.

    The absence of a negative outcome isn`t an authority to act.

    Might make it so they aren`t just stats and game pieces in your mind.
    Never mind, this is obviously the same HG. I can tell because you have the same sand in your vagina.
  34. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:22 pm
    HA

    "You wouldn`t think it is OK to steal the wealth of rich people if children weren`t starving."

    YES. I believe EVERYONE has the right to food, water, shelter, healthcare, and education before ANYONE has the right to a picasso in their 18th bathroom. Guess that makes me a commie libertard.

    I am not talking about equal distribution. F.uck that. People deserve to reap the benefit of talent, luck, and / or hard work. Just not at the expense of the very survival of another.

    "Never mind, this is obviously the same HG. I can tell because you have the same sand in your vagina."

    Yes. Caring for people makes me a giant p.ussy. I get it. Awesome.

    We each have our own sense of morality, yours is pretty clear. I guess you are lucky that you were born to a middle class american family, because had you been born in haiti or rawanda you`d be f.ucked because of people like you.
  35. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    Where are the parents of these starving children? What are they doing? Also starving? What if we `save` these starving children? They grow up and multiply. Now what? More starving children?

    Life is rough. Sink or swim.
  36. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm
    mykunter

    "What if we `save` these starving children? They grow up and multiply. Now what? More starving children?"

    I`m NOT talking about just sending food or money. That is a bandaid. I`m talking about improving water and sanitation. Implementing sustainable power and farming. Building hospitals and schools. Providing vaccination.

    These are solutions. These are solutions for generations.

    "Life is rough. Sink or swim."

    So when a 6 month old dies from malnutrition, tough s.hit he should have worked harder?

    Conservative media is paid by rich people to convince you that people are poor because they made bad choices and its their fault. That you should blame them for being poor. It isn`t always the case. Some people had NO OPPORTUNITY at all. NO CHANCE. In a world with this much wealth and resources I just don`t see how that is acceptable.
  37. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:38 pm
    So when a 6 month old dies from malnutrition, tough s.hit he should have worked harder?

    NO. It`s parents should have ensured a sustainable future for said `6 month old`. Mine did.
  38. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:44 pm
    mykunter

    "Mine did."

    Yes. Nice huh? Pretty sweet to be born to the right people in the right place isn`t it?

    But if your parents were illiterate with no access to education or any means to better themselves and were living like animals in slums without food or clean water my guess is things would have turned out differently for you.
  39. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:52 pm
    ...living like animals

    Your words, not mine. Give them condoms. It`s the best solution.
  40. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm
    mykunter

    "Your words, not mine. Give them condoms. It`s the best solution."

    That would be a wonderful idea. If only religion didn`t go into third world countries and teach them that condoms are a sin.
  41. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm
    @HG

    No, you`re a big p*ssy because you can`t even consider the possibility that your suggestion won`t have the effect you`re looking for.

    Every time I`ve raised a difficult point, you go back to the "poor starving children" bit; it gets old.

    Obviously you`re just trying to exploit poor people to further your agenda. You should be ashamed.
  42. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm
    I have no sympathy for religious people. Now excuse me, your bleeding heart is getting on my shoes.
  43. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:12 pm
    HA

    "Obviously you`re just trying to exploit poor people to further your agenda. You should be ashamed."

    I`m trying to exploit poor people to further my agenda of helping poor people?

    Let`s go back a few steps. You said:

    "We both want starving children to have food to eat. We both want everyone to be healthy, fed, housed, clothed, and have a decent income.

    Where we differ is in our opinions of the methods best suited to reach that goal."

    I asked you WHAT your method was. You have been more than willing to shoot holes in my ideas, but I can`t think of a single time you`ve put one of your own up.
  44. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:32 pm
    @HG

    I asked you WHAT your method was.
    Oh, my bad; sorry, I got caught up in all the "just think of the children!" lines you were throwing out.

    People not in this country? Leave them be. Our government only hurts people overseas. Yes, they need help. No, we cannot help them. Nothing we do will be good for them.

    As for people in this country, who is starving to death? I don`t see anyone. Hell, even the homeless here are fat. Where is this apocalypse? Where are these fat-cats swimming in cash?

    The point I`m making is that there is no perfect solution. Yes, some people are going to get f*cked. Which system f*cks less people?

    Surely not the socialist society we live in. Since the 1910`s we`ve continued to inch further into socialism and look where we`ve ended up.
  45. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:33 pm
    You see, the HG crowd won`t even entertain the concept that their ideas will not yield the desired result. No, the Central Planners always are right. They`re always successful. You know, these ideas have been tried before. Wealth confiscation especially, it doesn`t work.

    What has worked is Capitalism. Even Bill Gates says that poor countries will cease to exist for the most part by 2035. And the reason is Capitalism. The era of Global Capitalism has coincided with the greatest era of wealth creation and poverty reduction on the planet. Look at China, South America, and Botswana. They didn`t grow so rapidly - particularly in just the last 15 years - because of the workers "owning the means of production", but because entrepreneurs who risked their capital could be rewarded.

    Your ideas are nothing new Holy God. They`re actually some of the oldest ideas in the book.
  46. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    @HG

    We should move back towards free-market principles. Just look at Hong Kong for example. One of the poorest nations on Earth a few decades ago, and now they have an average income higher than US occupants.

    Their poor people have higher standards of life than our lower-middle class people. Why? What miracle transpired there that caused this dramatic turnaround?

    They gave up socialism, and created the freest economy on Earth.

    To you, this is probably just a coincidence though. There`s obviously no way free market principles work.

    Well, maybe they work for Asians, but obviously white people just can`t pull it off, am I right?
  47. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 10:43 pm
    @HG

    I`m trying to exploit poor people to further my agenda of helping poor people?
    No, you`re trying to exploit poor children in order to justify punishing rich people. We`ve been down this road before. You`ve made it abundantly clear that you take issue with people who have accumulated wealth and believe that you have some moral authority to confiscate that wealth for your own agenda.

    By referencing the invisible "poor starving children" who exist in some far away land, you are exploiting their suffering for the purpose of your agenda.
  48. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6183 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 11:03 pm
    HA

    "Surely not the socialist society we live in. Since the 1910`s we`ve continued to inch further into socialism and look where we`ve ended up."

    Yes. To a place where "who is starving to death? I don`t see anyone."

    Social security. Medicare. Medicaid. WIC. Police departments. Fire departments. Public transportation. Parks. Public education. Food assistance. Libraries. All "socialist" things expanded or implemented since 1910.

    You really think poor people were better off in 1910? Holy s.hit. That is a good place to end the conversation. We disagree on what reality is. That seems fairly significant.
  49. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 11:07 pm
    @HG

    Yes. To a place where "who is starving to death? I don`t see anyone."
    You think socialism is an all or none deal? You`re wrong; it`s really that simple. There are elements of Capitalism and Socialism in our economy.

    FFS, I didn`t realize I`d have to do an Econ lesson. OK, we have what`s called a Mixed Economy. As in, it`s a mixed of other "pure" economies.

    Social security. Medicare. Medicaid. WIC. Police departments. Fire departments. Public transportation. Parks. Public education. Food assistance.
    Bankrupt. Bankrupt. Bankrupt. Bankrupt. Militarized. Debatable. Disaster. Bankrupt.

    Yes, bravo to you and your socialism. That`s one hell of a record.

    We disagree on what reality is. That seems fairly significant.
    I agree. Your imaginary lalaland of feel-good moments and happiness doesn`t exist. I`m glad we both were able to agree on this.
  50. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 21, 2014 at 11:12 pm
    @HG

    Just admit it; liberalism is your religion and government is your God.

    The parallels are shocking.
  51. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 12:15 am
    @HumanAction a few comments from someone who lives in Hong Kong:

    "Their poor people have higher standards of life than our lower-middle class people." Nope. We have an extreme wealth gap. I live in 2000+sqft with servants, a garden and a pool. The vast majority raise a family in under 400sqft.

    "They gave up socialism, and created the freest economy on Earth." We have a free economy, also free education, free healthcare, plus and housing and social security.

    "Well, maybe they work for Asians, but obviously white people just can`t pull it off, am I right?" The primary reasons for Hong Kong`s wealth are inherited from the British: English Common law, the rule of law and generally good governance.
  52. Profile photo of Modwain
    Modwain Male 40-49
    336 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 5:04 am
    humanaction, you are unfortunatly wrong.. there are small elements of socialism in the us economy, this is true, just as there are small elements of capitalism in the us economy.
    But the frigthning large part of the us economy is plutocracy or as it is often dubbed now adays as corporatism.
    The bottom line is this, a decent mix of socialism and capitalism and democracy seems to work best. A lot of countries prove this, the us started this line of thinking and decided to go elsewhere. Bank bailouts, conglomorates paying next to no tax at all, the insanely rich paying next to no tax at all. Yup, that leaves a poor economy.
    On the other hand, look at Iceland. Two banks fell shortly after eachother.. what did the goverment do? well, what every social capitalistic democracy should do. A company went down, nothing else. But now iceland is thriving again. Thing is though, everyone pays their taxes.
    This is not the case in the `richest economy in the world`
  53. Profile photo of Modwain
    Modwain Male 40-49
    336 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 5:08 am
    Then again, it is dawning on more and more people that the usa is slipping badly. Hell, the middle east and china have invested as much money in the usa as they have in third world countries.
    Did you think why the us government is getting friendlier and friendlier with china? because you do not bite the hand that feeds you.
    Sickening as it is, money from china does more for the us economics that the super wealthy in the us.

    And the Very worst part is that the us middleclass, which is dwindling as we speak, still loves to defend the super rich in the us. But the super rich will do nothing for you, because they feel they are doing so much allready, like how to drown the us government`s irs with HUGE tax returns that would take the whole irs years to go trough. Therewith making sure that they get cleared of what little taxes they allredy would have to pay.

    but sure, socialism is a bad word, and plutocracy equals capitalism, right?
  54. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 6:20 am
    @Drac

    While I appreciate your input, seeing as you live there, please allow me to explain my comments in more detail.

    We have an extreme wealth gap.
    Everywhere has either an extreme wealth gap, or extreme poverty. HK routinely is rated above the US in GDP (PPP) per capita. I`ve never been able to find data on Median Household Income for HK, but that would be a better indicator.

    Either way, would you agree that the average standard of living has improved dramatically in the last few decades?

    We have a free economy, also free education, free healthcare, plus and housing and social security.
    By statement is based on HK routinely being rated as the freest economy in the world. There is no pure capitalism in existence, nor has there ever been.

    Economists tend to credit the free economy with the sudden improvement; that was my point.
  55. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 6:23 am
    @Modwain

    you are unfortunatly wrong..
    I`m not sure where you point out the error in my statements. In fact, your comments seem to reinforce them.

    I said that the US was a mixed economy - you agree. What I did not say is that the US has ONLY elements of capitalism and socialism; you assumed that. In reality, the plutocracy you claim is actually crony capitalism. I wouldn`t go so far as to claim it`s a plutocracy, but that`s a different debate.

    A company went down, nothing else.
    That`s a capitalistic idea - that bad business should be allowed to fail. In our country, we took the socialist route and bailed them out. So far, we`re still treading water in a recession.
  56. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 6:28 am
    @Mod

    Then again, it is dawning on more and more people that the usa is slipping badly.
    Yes, we are, and it is the result of our government intervention. The entire housing market collapse was the US governments fault. The wars we`ve been fighting are the US governments fault. Our fiat currency is the US governments fault.

    As for the whole "defending the rich" comment, I defend my principles - nothing more. If they got their wealth legally, I can see no justification for me stealing it - that is all. You`re probably wealthy by world standards; let`s take your wealth. Next time I`m feeling generous, I`ll take some more.

    but sure, socialism is a bad word, and plutocracy equals capitalism, right?
    What? This doesn`t even make sense. Socialism is a fail experiment. Crony capitalism is worse. Pure capitalism doesn`t, hasn`t, and will never exist.
  57. Profile photo of DinVen
    DinVen Male 30-39
    390 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 9:08 am
    To think what could happen for humanity if these compulsory money collectors weren`t so twisted and narrow minded.

    Education, infrastructure, scientific progress, health care - even serious space programs.

    But no these despicable individuals will hold on to what they can`t possibly use and witness global poverty, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of clean drinking water for billions etc. It`s perverted.
  58. Profile photo of TJEx
    TJEx Male 30-39
    86 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 10:09 am
    They can take all the wealth of the 85 people and spreed the wealth it to the 3.5 billion and still have 3.5 billion people poor.
  59. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    "I agree. Your imaginary lalaland of feel-good moments and happiness doesn`t exist. I`m glad we both were able to agree on this."

    As long as people like you exist yea it`ll never happen.
  60. Profile photo of Modwain
    Modwain Male 40-49
    336 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 4:01 pm
    human action. a social democracy is working in several of the more succesfull countries .
    Plutocracy isnt crowny capitalism, it is big money deciding the routes of government. Which is what is happening in the us.
    Bailing out companies is not socialism. If a companie fails but is big, it is allouwed to crash and is then restarted from a government influence. No bail out money, no bonussus, none of that bs. no trying to get out from under taxes.
    But the bailouts we see in the us basicly boil down to handing rich people more money at the expense of everyone else. Basicly, after a company has been handed a bailout check ,they try to make sure they pay as little tax as possible, and if anyone complains about this, they make sure that they (by activly participating in politics) get away with it.

    You know human action. Personaly i wouldnt mind, if it werent for the fact that i see more countries deal with the economic crisis in more or less the same way
  61. Profile photo of Modwain
    Modwain Male 40-49
    336 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 4:03 pm
    Eventually, the problem will be so big that the only answer will be an uprising. Do not mistake this as a revolution, i mean, it can be but by no means has to be. I fear though, that the people will demand a better sharing of not even the wealth but the mere option of a decent life.

    But then, it may take some time
  62. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3367 posts
    January 22, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    A side note. If they were to split all the money evenly sure it sounds like they`d all be poor the fact is they wouldn`t. They`d all be on equal footing. If that were to happen (which it wouldn`t) prices would adjust to the new market. You still think a burger at Mcdonalds or your rent would still be the same? No way, it`s not possible everyone has the same amount of wealth so the system would be "reset". Don`t act like everyone would be poor when in fact it`s the exact opposite. People would have to reprice and revalue everything.
  63. Profile photo of Modwain
    Modwain Male 40-49
    336 posts
    January 23, 2014 at 1:30 am
    Sigh.. it is not about splitting money, or all other resources, just food, housing, training, healthcare and safety.

    So, you want that new iphone? tough luck, save up for it. No one owes you that. But.. Decent education or any of the other points i mentioned earlier, it should be within reach, not something you need to safe up for.

Leave a Reply