Page 1 of 3
#1
Video


The fact that 85 of the wealthiest people on Earth have about as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion is just "fantastic" according to this 1%er.

A stat like that exemplifies everything that is wrong with capitalism. While in theory the most innovative minds, genius inventors, hard working individuals, and businesses which provide the best goods and services should be the most prosperous, that is clearly not always the case. Pitting a 99%er against a 1%er in today's global economy is like pitting a bench warmer on a little league team against the 1927 New York Yankees.

When this inequality is brought up or any attempt is made to balance it out in even the most minute ways we are told this line of thinking is the dreaded "socialism" and we aren't working hard enough and are being lazy parasites living off the government. The reason starving children in Zimbabwe can't compete with the wealth of billionaires has nothing to do with them refusing to "pull themselves up by the boot straps". It's not an even playing field when the poor, working poor, working class, middle class, or merely moderately wealthy are forced to compete with the obscenely wealthy in power who are able to manipulate and control tax codes and other laws in order to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.


The fact that anyone not super wealthy supports this system boggles my mind. Yet many do, claiming the "free market" will make everything right with its "invisible hand". Just who do you think controls the "free market"? When you consider the fact that just 6 corporations own 90% of the media in the U.S. added to the fact that sort of consolidation of power is a phenomena seen in every aspect of the so called "free market" it takes the most important weapon away from the consumer (the vital ingredient in the free market); choice.
#5
you'll never be among the 85 with that attitude, boy!
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#8
the 99% are just jealous lol

I know I am
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#9
To be honest my complaint isn't with the wealth gap as much as it is with poor people who support this system which helps to keep them impoverished.
#10
You're using the internet to post this. You're paying a broadband provider. On a device. You're paying for that technology. You have the choice to stop using it.
When you buy clothes, food, gas, guitars or whatever, you're supporting the richer people but also the tailors, the farmers, the riggers and the luthiers. It does trickle down.

I do agree though, wealth is horribly distributed. Especially when majority of people's profits go straight to simply surviving. If I campaigned against it, I would be a hypocrit as I support it as a consumer.
On playing the Paul Gilbert signature at the guitar store extensively, my missus sighed:
"Put it down now, It's like you love that guitar more than me!"
In Which I replied.
"Well it has got two F-Holes!"
#11
Quote by Nameless742

I do agree though, wealth is horribly distributed. Especially when majority of people's profits go straight to simply surviving. If I campaigned against it, I would be a hypocrit as I support it as a consumer.

I don't think anyone can fairly call you out as being a hypocrite for being a consumer, since you need to be a consumer to live a reasonable life.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Jan 22, 2014,
#12
Quote by Nameless742
You're using the internet to post this. You're paying a broadband provider. On a device. You're paying for that technology. You have the choice to stop using it.
When you buy clothes, food, gas, guitars or whatever, you're supporting the richer people but also the tailors, the farmers, the riggers and the luthiers. It does trickle down.

I do agree though, wealth is horribly distributed. Especially when majority of people's profits go straight to simply surviving. If I campaigned against it, I would be a hypocrit as I support it as a consumer.

Stupid argument. In order to survive in the modern world you need to do those things. That's like saying to slaves "It's your fault your slaves, if you stopped working than it will all go away".
#13
Quote by Nameless742
You're using the internet to post this. You're paying a broadband provider. On a device. You're paying for that technology. You have the choice to stop using it.
When you buy clothes, food, gas, guitars or whatever, you're supporting the richer people but also the tailors, the farmers, the riggers and the luthiers. It does trickle down.

I do agree though, wealth is horribly distributed. Especially when majority of people's profits go straight to simply surviving. If I campaigned against it, I would be a hypocrit as I support it as a consumer.


As I attempted to point out in the OP because of the centralized wealth and power of a few corporations we are pretty much screwed. Because of the lack of choice it is difficult to not support them, sure some of it is luxury items, but I would hardly call food, clothes and gas to be luxuries in 1st countries, but necessities.
#14
Quote by Bourbonstreet
A stat like that exemplifies everything that is wrong with capitalism.


Well considering most of the 3.5 billion aren't living under capitalism and the 85 poorest people under capitalism probably still have a better quality of life than any in that 3.5billion, I don't think its that bad.
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#15
Quote by Zombee
Well considering most of the 3.5 billion aren't living under capitalism and the 85 poorest people under capitalism probably still have a better quality of life than any in that 3.5billion, I don't think its that bad.


This video is specific to the U.S.
#17
You guys wanna start a secret forum and we can start doing mass lootings of the estates of the 1% ??? Even if we take everything they'll still have more than enough saved away
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#18
Just make sure the money you spend is wisely spent, support small business and such. No one should really have that much money and we can only hope that some of them do good with their coin. In saying that, I hardly make that much money but I'm happy so it doesn't directly effect me nor to I want to be wealthy, I'm not the kind of person who would fair well with everything layed out for me too easily. would be good to bring poverty stricken people closer to middle class, trickle the top money past middle classes to help out the poor in a kind of teach them to fish type thing.
#20
We could always try to create a system where everyone has the same amount. Oh wait, that doesn't work because EVERYONE ends up poor because they have no motivation to work.

A system of government can ever be 100% capitalist or 100% communist without failing, but that being said, a 95% capitalist government is about the best form of government man has yet devised.
#21
Quote by weezergeek182
We could always try to create a system where everyone has the same amount. Oh wait, that doesn't work because EVERYONE ends up poor because they have no motivation to work.

A system of government can ever be 100% capitalist or 100% communist without failing, but that being said, a 95% capitalist government is about the best form of government man has yet devised.

lol nope
#22
"When you consider the fact that just 6 corporations own 90% of the media in the U.S. added to the fact that sort of consolidation of power is a phenomena seen in every aspect of the so called "free market" it takes the most important weapon away from the consumer (the vital ingredient in the free market); choice."

To be honest I don't agree with the idea that the consumers have to fix this problem by their choices. Yes, as consumers we have to do some effort, but we can't blame ourselves for the way the capitalist system works. I just wish the greedy bastards in the 1% would get a heart and would solve the problem themselves (luckily some rich people do).
#24
Quote by weezergeek182
We could always try to create a system where everyone has the same amount. Oh wait, that doesn't work because EVERYONE ends up poor because they have no motivation to work.

A system of government can ever be 100% capitalist or 100% communist without failing, but that being said, a 95% capitalist government is about the best form of government man has yet devised.





sheep4lyfe
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#25
Quote by weezergeek182
A system of government can ever be 100% capitalist or 100% communist without failing, but that being said, a 95% capitalist government is about the best form of government man has yet devised.


I don't think full communism works but the current 'percentage' capitalism certainly is too big.
#28
Quote by weezergeek182
and what type of system would you propose?


One with restrictions to big capital to avoid the formation of monopolies and financial superpowers that stand above national governments. National governments sometimes do bad things, but at least they're democratic. Financial superpowers however are not and act mostly/only out of self interest.
#30
Quote by Soldier Poet
One with restrictions to big capital to avoid the formation of monopolies and financial superpowers that stand above national governments. National governments sometimes do bad things, but at least they're democratic. Financial superpowers however are not and act mostly/only out of self interest.


We already have laws restricting monopolies, but in a capitalist government, it is not the governments business to interfere with companies. Under communism, the government has to because it depends on these companies succeeding or failing. With the freedom from restrictions on business comes the freedom for someone to create and patent intellectual property, and fail or succeed. Agreed that there should be more restrictions, but it's not just big businesses that reach their hand in the pot, or squeak through the lines. Big government and charity do that too.
#31
Quote by Soldier Poet
"When you consider the fact that just 6 corporations own 90% of the media in the U.S. added to the fact that sort of consolidation of power is a phenomena seen in every aspect of the so called "free market" it takes the most important weapon away from the consumer (the vital ingredient in the free market); choice."

To be honest I don't agree with the idea that the consumers have to fix this problem by their choices. Yes, as consumers we have to do some effort, but we can't blame ourselves for the way the capitalist system works. I just wish the greedy bastards in the 1% would get a heart and would solve the problem themselves (luckily some rich people do).


That's the argument staunch capitalists make, the market should be free from government interference because consumers will pay for the best products and services, and therefore the companies who provide the best products and services will succeed. Obviously that notion is bullshit.
#32
Quote by captainsnazz
democratic socialism obviously


"Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. 'Oh, you like those noises? Those sounds in your ear? Do you like them? They're the wrong sounds. You should like these sounds in your ear.'"
- Dara O'Briain
#34
Quote by weezergeek182
We already have laws restricting monopolies, but in a capitalist government, it is not the governments business to interfere with companies. Under communism, the government has to because it depends on these companies succeeding or failing. With the freedom from restrictions on business comes the freedom for someone to create and patent intellectual property, and fail or succeed. Agreed that there should be more restrictions, but it's not just big businesses that reach their hand in the pot, or squeak through the lines. Big government and charity do that too.


Well, I do believe that competition and freedom on a small scale do provide better services and products. If you have a street with two bakeries, competition will cause them to give the best service possible so that they can (both) survive. When they do fail, there should be a very strong security net so people can actually try again. That's another discussion, though.
My problem with the way the system works currently is that certain big companies in certain aspects have become so strong that they can do whatever they want. Consider our current financial crisis. Big banks are still doing business as usual. In this situation the free market has turned into a playground for big companies without the constraint of small scale competition. It's a free space to let your greed loose. In my opinion national governments should always stay a level above companies.
Last edited by Soldier Poet at Jan 22, 2014,
#35
Quote by Soldier Poet
Well, I do believe that competition and freedom on a small scale do provide better services and products. If you have a street with two bakeries, competition will cause them to give the best service possible so that they can (both) survive. When they do fail, there should be a very strong security net so people can actually try again. That's another discussion, though.
My problem with the way the system works currently is that certain big companies in certain aspects have become so strong that they can do whatever they want. Consider our current financial crisis. Big banks are still doing business as usual. In this situation the free market has turned into a playground for big companies without the constraint of small scale competition. It's a free space to let your greed loose.


It's because at this current point we allow bakery a to buy out bakery b + c. As long as bakery d is still in business offering the an alternative there is considered to be NO monopoly. It has gotten much worse with the recession.

We actually do have safety nets. Hostess has fallen under like 6 or 7 times and keep coming back. lol.
#36
Quote by weezergeek182
It's because at this current point we allow bakery a to buy out bakery b + c. As long as bakery d is still in business offering the an alternative there is considered to be NO monopoly. It has gotten much worse with the recession.

We actually do have safety nets. Hostess has fallen under like 6 or 7 times and keep coming back. lol.


Yeah, I don't know a lot about safety nets in the US (though my impression is that they're meagre). They're well done here in The (socialist ) Netherlands.
Of course governments saving banks is some kind of safety net too, but a pretty bad one. Though I admit it's probably inevitable seeing how big banks are so deeply embedded in our economies. More free market I guess, lol.
#37
Regarding "income inequality": In 1990 Bill Gates had 5 billion dollars and I drove a beater of a car, rented a pretty dumpy 80+ year old house, and ate Ramen and Pasta Roni many times per week. Today Gates has 78 billion dollars and I have a nice (not extravagant) house, two modest cars, and I eat pretty much whatever I want. I'm having a real hard time understanding how I'm worse off just because the wealth gap between Mr. Gates and myself has increased by 1000% percent or more.

Additionally, there is no static group of 1%-ers. People move in and out of that group as they do in other income brackets. I know people who moved to the country six years ago, barely speaking English, now buying their first starter homes. No healthy, motivated person in the US has to be stuck in poverty. However, our crappy current economy is certainly not the optimal environment.

The reason there are starving children in Zimbabwe and other countries is that their governments are corrupt, and the citizens haven't even the opportunity to improve their livelihood. Even Bono has recently said words to the effect that capitalism would raise the standard of living for African nations more than charity ever could.
#38
Quote by Bourbonstreet
This video is specific to the U.S.


Thats the distribution in america. Your thread is about the distribution in the world, and blaming that on capitalism. Even then, that bottom 20% in the US is still better off than the 3.5billion world-wide you talk about in the first post.
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#39
Quote by karlosdaynjer
Regarding "income inequality": In 1990 Bill Gates had 5 billion dollars and I drove a beater of a car, rented a pretty dumpy 80+ year old house, and ate Ramen and Pasta Roni many times per week. Today Gates has 78 billion dollars and I have a nice (not extravagant) house, two modest cars, and I eat pretty much whatever I want. I'm having a real hard time understanding how I'm worse off just because the wealth gap between Mr. Gates and myself has increased by 1000% percent or more.



In the beginning of 2013 I lived in a crappy trailer and could barely afford groceries and gas. By the end of the year I have a nice (not extravagant) house, never have to worry about not having enough money for gas and groceries, and have a healthy savings account. Yet, no one would say it must have been caused by a huge economic turn around in a matter of one year. You are using your own experience to make the point that because you personally are able to do well financially despite the widening economic gap the same holds true for millions of Americans.
#40
I always thought that this scumbag would be perfect for the role of The Penguin in a Batman movie.
Page 1 of 3