[BartSimpson]

OPP OPP:

In the end it's those who already have the capital that sets the rules. We all like to belive that anyone has a chance for power and wealth but It's simply not true.

In 1895 the richest man in the world was Andrew Carnegie. With an inflation adjusted worth of about US $350 billion dollars he was arguably the richest man who has ever lived. In adjusted purchasing power his wealth was worth upwards of $1.2 trillion dollars in today's currency.

He was born in poverty and came to the USA and built his wealth from scratch. He had no trust fund to build on and his family had nothing for him to invest with.

This was at a time when it arguably was harder to become wealthy in the USA.

Yet he attained a level of wealth that has yet to be surpassed by anyone.

This was a man whose formal education ended when he turned thirteen.

Imagine what he could have accomplished with the advantages you have had in life?

Myself, I came from poor parents and now because of hard work and wise investments my net worth is in the seven figures. I have done this while many of my peers who had far greater advantages are wallowing in despair with the economy.

And there is no reason why you can't do the same except that you're not willing to apply yourself to the accomplishment.

Don't blame bogeymen who are controlling the world for your inabilities to succeed. You sound like you're reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in addition to Marx with that tripe.

If you want to be rich you can be. You just are not willing to make the sacrifices required to do it is all.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

Bart, wages have not increased in a meaningful way since the 1990's. Even if the banks wanted to lend they couldn't because the risk is too high. It's a central reason why there is zero spending is because everyone was supporting the economy on credit and this crisis has cut the credit supply. Thus the government had to step in to provide stimulus to fill a $2 trillion dollar hole in the economy otherwise the whole economy would implode.

It's a false economy that SHOULD implode.

The USA and the rest of the world thought we could borrow our way into prosperity and now we need to get real and deal with it. The stimulus is a crock and is just a last gasp transfer of wealth from the government to their buddies on Wall Street. The actual program to save people's homes has only saved four or five homes nationwide so far. At a cost of two trillion dollars. Right.

Let the economy implode and let people start living rationally and reasonably instead of pursuing mindless consumerism as a means of spiritual fulfillment.

Our economic model was idiotic because we tried to continue the Cold War economy in the absence of a cold war. Borrowing for a short term to cause the collapse of the USSR was sensible just the same as borrowing during WW2 made sense. BUt when the war ended the politicians didn't have the balls to bite the economic bullet of a contraction from a war-time economy and now here we are victims of a false prosperity.

Let it fall and then let us rebuild an economy with a firm foundation that is built on more than borrowing against the incomes of our great-great grandchildren.

[OPP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You really need to stop reading Marx.

Capitalism merely allows people to profit from their industriousness and resourcefulness.


A transfer of wealth to a small elite also occurs in socialism. Fidel Castro is reportedly a billionaire, for instance, while the average person in Cuba is destitute. And the Soviet leaders all lived like kings while the average Soviet citizen barely eked out an existence.

So socialism is not a guarantee of an equal distribution of wealth.

Those were communist countries and Cuba suffered greatly from poverty before the revolution as did the soviet block. Cuba were under a blockade and blacklisted by the states which tend to make things a bit troublesome economicaly. Furhter, corruption is not a socialist phenomenon.

Where you gave two examples of failed "socialist" states, there are many more capitalist states where poverty is to such an extreme that Cuba and The Soviet Union become a paradise. The healthcare system that Cuba is enjoying is the envy of many countries and in the end, a good education, good health and a full stomache is what most countries are struggling with today in the world. I saw inteviews with people from former soviet states where they complained that it might have been less freedom back in the soviet days but they atleast had free medicine, bread and a workplace.

In Brazil, however, one of many capitalist countries, there is such a large gap between rich and poor that the situation there is outright ******.
The rich upperclass lives in scycrapers, villas and mansions in Sao Paulo side by side with the the poor who live in homes they have created themselfs with whatever buildingmaterial they can get ahold of. The majority of the poor people come from the country side or the amazon where they have nothing. They flock to the big cities where they atleast can make a living but as jobs are scarse, many turn to crime to survive and not become homeless. So here come the capitalist paradox..

Kindnappings are the most common source of income for these criminals as it is most profitable with an acceptable risk. It's so common that many wealthy victims have been obducted more than once and one of the most profitable occupations in Brazil is plastic surgeon becaus of the mutilations that take place in combination with the kidnapping, where the ransom note come with a body part in nearly every case. They are therefore forced to drive in armoured cars to even make it to work and undergo training to evade capture. As the chriminals have refined their technique the rich have now turned to the roofs.
They fit their homes and workplaces ontop of large buildings with helicopters as to avoid traveling in public.

So, what is being done to improve the situation? Well, public funding is close to none in most places and as the corrupt politicians keep getting elected as they own all media outlets.. well. You see where I'm going with this.

$1:

Capitalism at least gives people the opportunity to become wealthy and to enjoy the fruits of their creativity and labor. Socialism on the other hand ends up discouraging people from creating wealth that will be confiscated by government via taxation and other schemes. Consequently, socialist nations end up being poor nations.

We see countries all over south and central america where socialism is getting a strong foothold. Where the destitute become land owners and where the poor get a good education to have a function in society.
We see Venezuela, where inequalities are rapidly disappearing and the transfer of wealth and power is being directed back to the people. Where stores do not set the prices after demand but after ethical and moral values. If the poeple who can not affoard to pay for their groceries becaus local business want to have a higher profit, they force the businesses to lower the prices.
Venezuela and most countris in central and south America have always been wealthy nations in resources but the wealth from these resources have only reached a few.
More often then not, foreign nations or big conglomerates have had controle of these riches and sucked the countries dry. Hugo Chavez put a stop to that and made sure that those riches went to the funding of schools, healthcare and an infrastructure in the many poor regions in the country.

$1:

Capitalism isn't fair. Neither is life.

But the bottom line is that in the modern economy if someone else is wealthy that has no effect on my opportunity to become wealthy. We no longer live in zero sum economies so the old adage that rich people became wealthy at the expense of others is simply not true anymore and it is only uttered by those who are ignorant of modern economic realities.

I'll take my chances with capitalism because with capitalism at least I have a chance. With socialism I have no chance at all.

You only have a fair shot if you have the same opportunities or conditions as the next guy. Fortunately for you and me, our countries resources arent all going into the pockets of the elite but into public funding which allows, atleast here in Sweden, us to go to a university without paying a dime. That means it does not matter weather you are wealthy or not, here in Sweden you have the chance to get the same education as anyone else. But there are still many things that are troublesome and worrysome.

[Scape]

Bart, I said it was a 2 trillion hole not that they are filling it. Even with all the spending it is lest then half of what is needed. What you are saying is suicide the economy is in a hard nose dive and needs to level out, your reccomemdation would end up killing the economy.

[OPP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

OPP OPP:

In the end it's those who already have the capital that sets the rules. We all like to belive that anyone has a chance for power and wealth but It's simply not true.

In 1895 the richest man in the world was Andrew Carnegie. With an inflation adjusted worth of about US $350 billion dollars he was arguably the richest man who has ever lived. In adjusted purchasing power his wealth was worth upwards of $1.2 trillion dollars in today's currency.

He was born in poverty and came to the USA and built his wealth from scratch. He had no trust fund to build on and his family had nothing for him to invest with.

This was at a time when it arguably was harder to become wealthy in the USA.

Yet he attained a level of wealth that has yet to be surpassed by anyone.

This was a man whose formal education ended when he turned thirteen.

Imagine what he could have accomplished with the advantages you have had in life?

Myself, I came from poor parents and now because of hard work and wise investments my net worth is in the seven figures. I have done this while many of my peers who had far greater advantages are wallowing in despair with the economy.

And there is no reason why you can't do the same except that you're not willing to apply yourself to the accomplishment.

Don't blame bogeymen who are controlling the world for your inabilities to succeed. You sound like you're reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in addition to Marx with that tripe.

If you want to be rich you can be. You just are not willing to make the sacrifices required to do it is all.

John D. Rockefeller, an oil king pin was wealthier and Carnegie made most of his wealth from iron and oil. Those are resources that belong to the public, not to a private businessman.

There's examples where simple people have become rich, when there is opportunity there is wealth to be had. When resources have already been claimed, then what?

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But the bottom line is that in the modern economy if someone else is wealthy that has no effect on my opportunity to become wealthy. We no longer live in zero sum economies so the old adage that rich people became wealthy at the expense of others is simply not true anymore and it is only uttered by those who are ignorant of modern economic realities.

More people have to understand that. ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.
If it was, with the exponential growth of the population we should not even afford to be able to live in a cave.

The current economic system is based on economical growth. That means that it is dependent on an ever increasing production of commodities which is impossible. The economy will eventually and inevitably halt and decline.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

Bart, I said it was a 2 trillion hole not that they are filling it. Even with all the spending it is lest then half of what is needed. What you are saying is suicide the economy is in a hard nose dive and needs to level out, your reccomemdation would end up killing the economy.

I think the economy is so bad that it's better to kill it than to let it fester.

But, of course, it won't be killed, so we'll just have to steel ourselves and prepare for the inevitable collapse.

[BartSimpson]

OPP OPP:

John D. Rockefeller, an oil king pin was wealthier

Ol' John D. controlled more wealth than did Carnegie, but Carnegie actually possessed his wealth and was therefore the wealthier of the two.

John D had more power and was frankly the capitalist who gave capitalism a bad name. Carnegie, IMHO, was a helluva guy and I wish I could have known him.

[Pseudonym]

romanP romanP:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Indeed.

Thus proving my point, you haven't got a fucking clue in your head because you're willfully ignorant and a bigot, just like Rush Limbaugh. You don't know what it means to dehumanise, you make things up, and you have no real interest in knowing anyway.

You got all that from my one word? My, you have a talent for interpretation my friend. Put that gift to good use and try reading what you yourself are saying. You might realize your own hypocrisy some day.

[Proculation]

OPP OPP:

Proculation Proculation:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But the bottom line is that in the modern economy if someone else is wealthy that has no effect on my opportunity to become wealthy. We no longer live in zero sum economies so the old adage that rich people became wealthy at the expense of others is simply not true anymore and it is only uttered by those who are ignorant of modern economic realities.

More people have to understand that. ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.
If it was, with the exponential growth of the population we should not even afford to be able to live in a cave.

The current economic system is based on economical growth. That means that it is dependent on an ever increasing production of commodities which is impossible. The economy will eventually and inevitably halt and decline.

Another un-understanding of what free market is.
The rarer the product is, the higher the price is. When a cost of a product for one purpose will get too high, it will change for something else (ex. electricity car instead of oil)

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

Another un-understanding of what free market is.
The rarer the product is, the higher the price is. When a cost of a product for one purpose will get too high, it will change for something else (ex. electricity car instead of oil)

We live in a consumption society. Buy, spend, throw away, produce in a never ending spiral. Economic growth is measured in a nations GDP which in turn is measured in goods and services produced in the country.

It's naive to think that man will always find a solution or a substitute for a resource that's gone bust. Our way of living is just not sustainable. Period.

[Scape]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Scape Scape:

Bart, I said it was a 2 trillion hole not that they are filling it. Even with all the spending it is less then half of what is needed. What you are saying is suicide the economy is in a hard nose dive and needs to level out, your reccomemdation would end up killing the economy.

I think the economy is so bad that it's better to kill it than to let it fester.

But, of course, it won't be killed, so we'll just have to steel ourselves and prepare for the inevitable collapse.

I don't understand such a sociopathic response. The economy most certainly is not doomed. It's in bad shape going from 14k to 6k in under a year but there is plenty fire in the belly yet. However, if the flame goes out then the debt will mean economic serfdom for the people of the USA. Not to mention the disaster that will be left for the rest of the world to endure.

[Proculation]

OPP OPP:

Proculation Proculation:

Another un-understanding of what free market is.
The rarer the product is, the higher the price is. When a cost of a product for one purpose will get too high, it will change for something else (ex. electricity car instead of oil)

We live in a consumption society. Buy, spend, throw away, produce in a never ending spiral. Economic growth is measured in a nations GDP which in turn is measured in goods and services produced in the country.

It's naive to think that man will always find a solution or a substitute for a resource that's gone bust. Our way of living is just not sustainable. Period.

Well, maybe it's the way the future will be for you. But in 2009, you are wrong.

[OPP]

Proculation Proculation:

OPP OPP:

Proculation Proculation:

Another un-understanding of what free market is.
The rarer the product is, the higher the price is. When a cost of a product for one purpose will get too high, it will change for something else (ex. electricity car instead of oil)

We live in a consumption society. Buy, spend, throw away, produce in a never ending spiral. Economic growth is measured in a nations GDP which in turn is measured in goods and services produced in the country.

It's naive to think that man will always find a solution or a substitute for a resource that's gone bust. Our way of living is just not sustainable. Period.

Well, maybe it's the way the future will be for you. But in 2009, you are wrong.

Sure, in the near future we could expect our economies to grow, but the this economic system is fundamentally flawed and we can expect that this system will face a lot of hardship much sooner than expected as for example countries like Saudi Arabia are not sitting on the amounts of oil that they claim. Peak oil was reached a long time ago.

[romanP]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

romanP romanP:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Indeed.

Thus proving my point, you haven't got a fucking clue in your head because you're willfully ignorant and a bigot, just like Rush Limbaugh. You don't know what it means to dehumanise, you make things up, and you have no real interest in knowing anyway.

You got all that from my one word? My, you have a talent for interpretation my friend.

You agreed with the person who said liberals are genetically defective and not human. The interpretation wasn't very difficult.

$1:

Put that gift to good use and try reading what you yourself are saying. You might realize your own hypocrisy some day.

I know what I'm saying, and I can clearly define it, and have done so. You, on the other hand, have yet to be able to concisely explain what you mean when you call me ignorant, a bigot, and a hypocrite, despite being asked several times. Instead, you asked me to tell you what you meant because you don't know what you meant.