By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fordy on 02 August 2011
Edit Thread
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
fordy said:

Your argument fails on the basis that if those centres were abolished, you believe there would be equal treatment. However, wealth classification will always mean that ones growing up in a rich family will always have a leg-up. If you believe in equality, tell me, do you support a 100% death tax? (that is, all accumulated wealth in one's life can not be inherited). 

This is the basis of capitalism. It's based on greed. Wealth can be obtained in two ways, by making more than others, or forcing others to make less. the American right-wing uses both of these methodsto ensure the wealthy stay wealthy and thus have the control.

i believe people can do with their own property what ever they please, if that means giving their money to their heirs then so be it.

for the second part, you do realize wallstreet gave more to obama than Mccain, right?

and for the bolded, the former way is capitalism, the latter way is socialism.

Your whole "equality" agenda bullshit is pure hypocrisy. So tell me, if you're for equality, why do you support people inheriting large sums of money and effectively having a leg-up against the rest? Not exactly equality, is it? Oh that's right, you're only for equality when it suits you.

Yes, Wall Street gave plenty to Obama and he's been the best conservative president in modern times. Funny how that works.

Correction, socialism is the equal distribution of all wealth. Capitalism stamps the poor down further in order to raise the value of the dollar. After all, there have to be classes that do the dirty work, right? You conservatives claim "everyone can be rich if they want to", but you realise what that ideology would lead to? Extreme inflation, and the dollar becoming worth less. Thereby, the wealthy like to keep their little collective group small in able to keep the value of their wealth high.


what does people inheriting money have anything to do with inequality. you are saying it would somehow be equal to have the government confascate private property. thats equal?, really.

 

if you think thats what socialism does, or if you think its so great, please be my guest, partake in it, or move somewhere where they have it. but thankfully history shows time and time again that socialism doesnt work and capitalism works (not what we currently have). socialism is a race to the bottom of the income ladder, for 95% of the people, keeping the rich rich. capitalism is almost always a race to the top.

studies show that on america poor people dont stay that way for long. for example in 1996 the bottom 20% of earner saw the incomes rise by 233% by 2006. and the CBO found that from 1994 to 2004 bottom 20% of earners saw the largest increases in their income than any other group.

you have a very scewed and inaccurate view of what capitalism is, which is both shocking and apolling. also you have no idea what causes inflation. and with capitalism their is actually people that can move up, that means people of all classes, so yes you will have some lower class, but in socialism, there is only one class, and that is th poor.

You didn't answer my first question. How is it equal when descendants of rich families can become rich themselves without earning it? How is that equal opportunity? Sounds pretty skewed opportunity.

Psst, by the way, that whole 95% owning all of the wealth? That's what's happening to America due to capitalism. You can call it corporatism, but the truth of the matter is, capitalism is not stable. It is merely to precursor to corporatism. Do I need to bring up Standard Oil in the 19th century? So was breaking Standard Oil up considered socialist? they are redistributing tons of wealth after all...

Most low income earners only see wage increases due to rising of the minimum wage (oh no! socialism is coming to get us!) However,  Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority. the gap between rich and poor is widening, and the rich cannot be happier.

I can see I'm dealing with someone new to economics, so let me give you a simple example. Say that an entire constituency becomes very wealthy. Services around that area realise that their constituents can pay more for their services now. Thus, prices rise. After all, paying $10 for a loaf of bread still is reasonable to 100% of their constituents since they're all wealthy, right? Competition will not work because of the tremendous margin made giving those services more power on the supply side. Thus, other services will be forced to play ball and rise prices accordingly, or be forced out of business due to high raw material prices. Rinse, repeat.

Socialism only becomes poor due to the collective consequences of the community. Too many people wanting a free ride. However, people are able to get a free ride in capitalism. It's called being born into a wealthy family, and live a worry-free lifestyle on the backs of the workers (the only people who actually generate wealth. None of this shifty wealth-out-of-thin-air stockmarket crap). And it's people like you who advocate unfair bullshit like this.