Since 1989, the top 1% have gained 21 trillion in wealth, the bottom 50% LOST 900 billion

[Jack V Savage]

I know. I just think it's funny when people refer to and champion Sweden as this socialist utopia when they are in fact very much capitalist still.

There's a weird thing that goes on with that stuff, though. Norway is actually closest to what the far-ish American left wants. So someone will say, "hey, Norway has a good system. We should do that." Libertarian responds, "actually, they're super capitalist, heh heh." "OK, let's have that kind of capitalism." "What? No! That's socialism!"

A well-functioning market *requires* a lot of intervention (environmental regs, for one thing) and a market economy with *minimal* regs is consistent with a lot of public ownership and a strong safety net.

 

[JoshTehV]

That smoothes out the highs and lows, so to speak.

Not really, in the real world like in the SF bay area. I have a buddy that makes 100k a year and pays 2.5k a month for a conjoined duplex side, that would leave him with about 40k. 40k-30k=10k a year for gas food, and other things and my buddy is a single father. Which leaves around 833 a month for him to spend on his son and himself. Car Insurance on its own is around 600 a year at the least so that further reduces how far his dollar will go. That high of an income tax would render a good chunk of the population financially helpless and permanently reliant on the government. I mean hell I remember the day my dad got a pay raise as a project manager and he saw his next check. He was fucking livid that he was making less than he was before the raise because of the tax bracket he was in.

 

[scorpipede]

Sorry, I don't speak in minerals or 2000s baby for that matter, but keep the stereotypical, liberal, ad hominem style arguments going.

 

[JoshTehV]

lmao you actually are reading this shit thread?

 

[scorpipede]

lmao you actually are reading this shit thread?

The one you saw fit to post in multiple times?

 

[JoshTehV]

The one you saw fit to post in multiple times?

yea, that was ultimately my sole intention

 

[toutadixballes]

The worst thing about the reactions is that people who have the "they should work more" take are never rich.

Brain dead manipulated slaves.

I come from a wealthy family and a millionaire without needing to work (I still work tho, and love my job), and politically I'm far left, close to anarchism.

Super wealthy people who want to perpetuate this unequal system are just working for their class, there is nothing pragmatic about it, pure tribalism and class ideology.

What is sad is that the 1% successfully made the majority of the 99% going against their interests.

From an insider POV, the wealthy people use identity politics (from both sides, white men bad/immigrants and Muslims bad) to make you all vote against your interests.

(Sorry for my English btw, it's my third language)

 

[AgonyandIrony]

@Corn Pop Hombre is just a communist trolling the forum for right-wingers, what is there to discuss with someone who has this as their signature: Seize the means of production.

Me think's your just hoping to get someone yellow carded by baiting everyone hard as hell

Can you explain what is wrong with his sig?

 

[Madmick]

I'm going to post this again because everyone in this thread/poll should know they've been lied to by the TS. If you believed that lie, then I suggest you stop and take a moment to reflect. We always like to think it's other people who are gullible. It's much harder to recognize & acknowledge this potential weakness in ourselves. The silver lining is that you can rectify this going forward. I'll keep it short and sweet.

1. The source of the data in the OP is a socialist, activist lawyer. All links in the OP are referencing his analysis.
2. His data is not the Fed's data. Here is the Fed's data:
   https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/efa/efa-distributional-financial-accounts.htm

Below is the chart of wealth by group for this period by the Fed:

The Bottom 50% controlled $0.76tn in Q3 1989. They controlled $1.66tn in Q4 2019. Even adjusting for inflation their wealth grew since 1989.

 

[MilesAbove]

1) Doesn't know who Noam Chomsky is, one of the greatest writers and intellectuals to ever walk the earth. The greatest political philosopher maybe since Aristotle

Honestly, this is correct. I disagree with Chomsky about as often as I agree with him.... but he's a stellar philosopher.

2) Yes, I've taken many subjects besides polisci. My degree was originally in economics. The great thing about a higher education is you get to take many courses in many fields.

Samsies. Ended up switching over to Philosophy after medical economics classes (which was taught by a hardcore right-winger. But like an adult with a brain, I was able to both disagree with the professor AND learn a lot.

3) You don't even know what the fuck a liberal is. This is only further evidenced by the fact you can't tell I am not one.

Got'eem

4) Cognitive dissonance is you flying into an "enlightened centrist" profanity ridden tirade because I had the audacity to point out the fact that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer.

That's kinda the WR in a nutshell.

 

[MilesAbove]

I'm going to post this again because everyone in this thread/poll should know they've been lied to by the TS. If you believed that lie, then I suggest you stop and take a moment to reflect. We always like to think it's other people who are gullible. It's much harder to recognize & acknowledge this potential weakness in ourselves. The silver lining is that you can rectify this going forward. I'll keep it short and sweet.

1. The source of the data in the OP is a socialist, activist lawyer. All links in the OP are referencing his analysis.
2. His data is not the Fed's data. Here is the Fed's data:
   https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/efa/efa-distributional-financial-accounts.htm

Below is the chart of wealth by group for this period by the Fed:

The Bottom 50% controlled $0.76tn in Q3 1989. They controlled $1.66tn in Q4 2019. Even adjusting for inflation their wealth grew since 1989.

I KNOW your reading comprehension isn't that bad. So if you read the article you'd know what's flawed in your argument.

 

[Alphafail]

Shut up and go back to work, slave!

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

I'm going to post this again because everyone in this thread/poll should know they've been lied to by the TS. If you believed that lie, then I suggest you stop and take a moment to reflect. We always like to think it's other people who are gullible. It's much harder to recognize & acknowledge this potential weakness in ourselves. The silver lining is that you can rectify this going forward. I'll keep it short and sweet.

1. The source of the data in the OP is a socialist, activist lawyer. All links in the OP are referencing his analysis.
2. His data is not the Fed's data. Here is the Fed's data:
   https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/efa/efa-distributional-financial-accounts.htm

Below is the chart of wealth by group for this period by the Fed:

The Bottom 50% controlled $0.76tn in Q3 1989. They controlled $1.66tn in Q4 2019. Even adjusting for inflation their wealth grew since 1989.

Lol you can't even get your claims correct guy. I've already thoroughly btfo you but you feel the need to keep coming back for more because not enough people liked your post or agreed with you or something.

You keep changing the claims. First you said "no the bottom 50% didn't lose 900 billion in wealth! It was only 200 billion!" Now you're changing it to "poor people have tvs and cell phones tho!". Durable goods aren't wealth. Pack it up and go home. Youre not getting any traction no matter how much you want to repeat the propaganda

 

[Madmick]

Lol you can't even get your claims correct guy. I've already thoroughly btfo you but you feel the need to keep coming back for more because not enough people liked your post or agreed with you or something.

You keep changing the claims. First you said "no the bottom 50% didn't lose 900 billion in wealth! It was only 200 billion!" Now you're changing it to "poor people have tvs and cell phones tho!". Durable goods aren't wealth. Pack it up and go home. Youre not getting any traction no matter how much you want to repeat the propaganda

He plainly asserted a loss of accumulated wealth by the Bottom 50% during this period (-$200bn after adjusted for inflation). You said these were the Fed's numbers.

The Fed's own assessment of wealth contradicts this. I just posted this for everyone to review. The facts of this matter are quite plain.

 

[skysolo]

What exactly do you want me to address? If we're being honest here, I don't like getting into these tired, worn out arguments over broad issues that certainly won't get solved here. Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism, etc. We just sit around and throw the kitchen sink at it and then what. It's neat to sit around and debate this stuff, but there's no easy answer to any of it. I'd prefer to talk about specific issues as they arise as they are more relevant to my voting interests.

But since you asked a specific question about dirty water..... Do I think we should do nothing about it? Of course not. I don't live in Michigan so I don't know the nuance to their problems. I'd have loved to run a water sample through our ICP-OES at my previous job as well to read those numbers myself.

But at the end of the day, what does this have to do with capitalism? The city and state government are responsible for the water reclamation and filtration. Do I think the Feds should have stepped in? Yeah maybe if the state couldn't get their shit together. But at the end of the day "government" is the operative word here.

Let me ask you this.... if the water division of Flint Michigan was privately owned and operated.. do you think they would have provided better or worse water to the people of that city?

Ok....

You responded to TS with "what about the other 49%". This is a legitimate question.

I posted a response to your post and hopefully it answered your question.

Then you reply to me with something dumb about Sweden. What does Sweden have to do with the states and why is it comparable? I don't know. It was a flippant reply to my post.

I answered your question and your replied with nonsense.

 

[TeTe]

There's a weird thing that goes on with that stuff, though. Norway is actually closest to what the far-ish American left wants. So someone will say, "hey, Norway has a good system. We should do that." Libertarian responds, "actually, they're super capitalist, heh heh." "OK, let's have that kind of capitalism." "What? No! That's socialism!"

A well-functioning market *requires* a lot of intervention (environmental regs, for one thing) and a market economy with *minimal* regs is consistent with a lot of public ownership and a strong safety net.

Well that's why I was being kind of snarky about this whole thing. I wasn't sure what TS was hoping for here. To talk about an outright replacement of capitalism is dumb... but fine if he wants to argue for regulations to whatever extent of our brand of capitalism is.

So in a sense, I understood where you were coming from when you said that capitalism is good and the best system. Knowing you, I realize what kind of regulations you want of that system. So it isn't a matter of turning over the market in total to the government.. it's just having the government intervene more into our system to provide protection for the proletariat class. This of course is where I was coming from with my Sweden comment because they are of course built upon a capitalist foundation. It isn't government ruling business and diving everything up equally among it's population. Of course, this is a pipe dream among those who favor straight socialism.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Pick your source, idgaf. The source of these articles is all from the Fed.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-trillion-bottom-50-down-900-billion/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...eased-a-damning-indictment-of-capitalism.html
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ned-21-trillion-wealth-1989-while-bottom-half

What happened conservatives?

I thought a rising tide lifts all ships? I thought market capitalism was lifting people out of poverty? I thought competition and free markets delivered freedom?

Are the people in the bottom 50% (which includes the middle class) more free and prosperous, since collectively losing nearly a trillion in wealth? Do the people in the bottom 50% just need some more "personal responsibility" and "hard work"? Do they just need better bootstraps?

Did the top 1%, work 21 trillion dollars harder, than the bottom 50% collectively?

Predict the clown show brigade response below:
A) This is fine. Actually, its desirable.
B) Fake news.
C) TDS
D) "not real capitalism"
E) "its duh globalists"

Be careful with blanket statements. Free trade has dramatically improved the standards of living of most people on the planet and will continue to pull people out of poverty . It is very good for people living in poverty in poor countries. Statistics don't lie: less and less people live in extreme poverty, child mortality is decreasing, more people have access to basic education.

HOWEVER the current form of capitalism is not bringing more wealth to the average person in Western democracies. It's a neo-liberal lie that everybody profits from less regulation and less social programs.
The poorer 30% in the West are WORSE OFF than they were a generation ago.

My personal belief is that capitalism reached its peak around like 1995-2005 ish for the Western working class. What is good for poor people in Pakistan and Ghana might not be in US and Europe's working class best interest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well that's why I was being kind of snarky about this whole thing. I wasn't sure what TS was hoping for here. To talk about an outright replacement of capitalism is dumb... but fine if he wants to argue for regulations to whatever extent of our brand of capitalism is.

So in a sense, I understood where you were coming from when you said that capitalism is good and the best system. Knowing you, I realize what kind of regulations you want of that system. So it isn't a matter of turning over the market in total to the government.. it's just having the government intervene more into our system to provide protection for the proletariat class. This of course is where I was coming from with my Sweden comment because they are of course built upon a capitalist foundation. It isn't government ruling business and diving everything up equally among it's population. Of course, this is a pipe dream among those who favor straight socialism.

Yeah, but I don't think people who call themselves socialists want that either. So it's mostly a pointless discussion.

If you believe markets work, you should be aware of why they do and under what conditions. Anytime you have a person or entity incurring costs that they don't pay (as with pollution, or even carbon emissions, or even reducing the stock of a natural resource), that's a problem for the function of markets that justifies intervention. I'd argue that that applies to land, too. With regard to labor relations, there's often a huge information imbalance that fucks with the proper functioning of markets. If we follow capitalist principles to their natural conclusion, we actually end up in a surprisingly socialist place. This is why I think right-wing libertarians are so misguided. They basically identify themselves as liberals but aren't really aware of their own traditions and the logic that underlies their own positions.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

He plainly asserted a loss of accumulated wealth by the Bottom 50% during this period (-$200bn after adjusted for inflation). You said these were the Fed's numbers.

The Fed's own assessment of wealth contradicts this. I just posted this for everyone to review. The facts of this matter are quite plain.

Keep shilling for the ultra wealthy bud. I know it makes you feel like part of the club, and maybe, just maybe they'll let you in one day if you just lick their boots hard enough.

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

Just remember there are people among us who believe that the weak, disadvantaged and poor are nothing but profit centers to be exploited by the powerful

• Chesten_Hesten
• walkingdog
• Skylako
• StantsA
• Wadtucket
• HTTR21
• Dilan Cummingsworth
• Raptac
• RowdyLesnar