The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
what does that graph show other than the premise that income disparity exists?
that people without money can't spend it??
it has nothing to do with the issues of supply, production, and inflation that you were talking about
Baba fails to understand that the top brass at companies funnel the profits of the company straight to the top. They do this by holding down worker pay as much as possible. It's literally trickle (actually pour) up.How about this? We pass legislation that compensation for any single person (like CEO) cannot ever exceed a set multiple of the lowest paying worker. This includ
So your idea to help the lowest skilled workers is to reduce the incentive for people to take the risk of starting a company and for current companies to keep growing? You do realize that results in slower economic growth and therefore fewer jobs, right?
I’m not sure what multiple you think is reasonable since you didn’t state it (and likely won’t), but let me assume you think the top paid employee should make 3x what the lowest paid employee makes. If that is the case, you would have significantly fewer people quitting their job making say a steady 50k to risk everything they have just for a small chance for their idea to succeed to make only 150k?
It all comes down to a redistribution of consumption and the top 1% just don't consume enough to make any meaningful impact on the bottom 50%. Only the upper quintile can.
You are right that rich people spend less of what they bring in than poor people and spending more money helps the economy. However, what people who make your argument always forget is what rich people do with their money they don’t spend and how that helps the economy as well.
They keep more money in the bank and the bank uses that money to give people car loans and mortgages.
They invest it in their own business to grow their business which results in more jobs and the company spends it building another factory which also creates jobs.
They invest in someone else business which, like above, helps that company grow and hire more people.
You are right that rich people spend less of what they bring in than poor people and spending more money helps the economy. However, what people who make your argument always forget is what rich people do with their money they don’t spend and how that helps the economy as well. They keep more money in the bank and the bank uses that money to give people car loans and mortgages.
I’m not ignoring how they deploy capital. However, they are primarily maximizing ROI, and current Fed monetary policy combined with federal tax policy dictates where those returns are highest.
Historically, pre-Bretton Woods, home ownership was financed through workers' savings via Savings & Loans, while business growth was driven by reinvested profits. This was an ideal schema for almost everyone. Today, however, policy warps these incentives. Gains are now frequently sought through stock buybacks or cash hoarding rather than innovation. Furthermore, modern productivity gains often focus on marketing and market-share retention rather than consumer value; the goal is to provide the bare minimum necessary to retain a customer base.
This lost opportunity cost explains why GDP growth no longer translates into the improved living standards we saw in the 1950s and 60s. While the 'Wall Street crowd' has seen explosive growth, the average consumer’s situation is further complicated by decreased savings and unprecedented debt loads
Well when you complain that the rich don't spend enough of their income to "make any meaningful impact on the bottom 50%" it sure sounds like you are suggesting that the only way for an individual to help the bottom 50% is to spend money. This is of course very far from being true. Without people parking money in the bank and investing in companies you have little chance to grow an economy which means companies stop hiring and everyone is worse off.
Yes, rich people, like the poor and middle class utilize capital in a way they people they are maximizing their ROI. For some that means using more money to feed their family, others donate it to charity which makes them feel great and others invest it in a company they think will pay them even more money in the future.
and current Fed monetary policy combined with federal tax policy dictates where those returns are highest.
Monetary policy and taxes play some part in returns for different investments, but for most investments it is wrong to say those two things dictate their future returns. They have an impact, but dictates is insanely too strong of a word to use.
Historically, pre-Bretton Woods, home ownership was financed through workers' savings via Savings & Loans, while business growth was driven by reinvested profits. This was an ideal schema for almost everyone. Today, however, policy warps these incentives. Gains are now frequently sought through stock buybacks or cash hoarding rather than innovation.
Home ownership used to be financed through savings and loans and now they are financed through banks... not sure why you highlighted this difference.
I know a lot of people hate when companies do a stock buyback, but why is it bad for anyone? It seems like a way for a company to invest in itself.
Again, just because a company is "hoarding" cash does not mean that cash is not helping the poor and middle class (see my explanation about what happens when rich people don't spend all of their money).
This lost opportunity cost explains why GDP growth no longer translates into the improved living standards we saw in the 1950s and 60s. While the 'Wall Street crowd' has seen explosive growth, the average consumerÂ’s situation is further complicated by decreased savings and unprecedented debt loads
You are going to need to show your work on why GDP growth doesn't have a strong correlation to living standards in a country as free as the US currently is.
I agree that the avg person isn't benefited enough about GDP growth (although they are still positively effected by it). However, I think a major contributing factor to that is that where people who are saving are saving the money. If you look at the diversification of people by different net worths you will see poor people have almost 0% in the stock market, middle class has a little in the market (shout out 401ks) and rich people have a large % of their money in stocks. This problem is made worse because the middle class doesn't have much to save after investing in their home and a forced savings into social security. If we were able to turn SS from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan that invests part of the money in the stock market it would be a massive benefit for the poor and middle class.
America doesn’t really think it’s number one at those things apart from maybe a free press, education, life expectancy and social mobility, so maybe half the list.
Still interesting though.
Your graphic said USA#1 is 24th in happiness by a study of OECD countries we ranked 14th.
Income inequality and wealth inequality are not problems in a country as free as the US. If your neighbor wins the lottery then inequality goes up but you aren't somehow worse off. Also, I would guess "Happiness" and "income inequality" are insanely highly correlated since there are a hell of a lot of people will never be happy if their neighbor is richer than them.
On the things USA#1 is #1 you left off innovation, medical breakthroughs, entrepreneurship, entertainment production, space exploration, food variety, cyber security, disability protections, professional football world titles, military power and economic power to name a few.
The US has also been voted #1 every year (or nearly ever year) for a long time to be the most desirable country to live by immigrants.
If your neighbor wins the lottery then inequality goes up but you aren't somehow worse off.
If I live in a "company town", the boss being super wealthy IS holding back (somehow? worse off...lol) the town residents who could certainly use a bigger pay check.
Meta (META) on Thursday became the latest Big Tech company to announce layoffs as the ballooning costs of the AI build-out and efficiencies continue to hit workers in the industry.
The company said it will cut 10% of its workforce, or about 8,000 employees.
According to a source familiar with the matter, roughly 7% of Microsoft’s US employees, senior directors or below, can take part in the buyouts if their years at the company plus their age add up to at least 70.
Meta profits
Microsoft profits
Microsoft annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2012 to 2025. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.
Microsoft gross profit for the quarter ending December 31, 2025 was $55.295B, a 15.6% increase year-over-year.
Microsoft gross profit for the twelve months ending December 31, 2025 was $209.499B, a 15.29% increase year-over-year.
Microsoft annual gross profit for 2025 was $193.893B, a 13.38% increase from 2024.
Microsoft annual gross profit for 2024 was $171.008B, a 17.09% increase from 2023.
Microsoft annual gross profit for 2023 was $146.052B, a 7.69% increase from 2022.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's total compensation reached a record $96.5 million for fiscal year 2025, a 22% increase from the previous year, driven largely by stock awards.
I will say zuck gets less than many (still too much) but he's still ain't hurting.
Key Details on Zuckerberg's Wealth:
Ranking: Frequently ranked 3rd to 6th on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and Forbes lists as of late 2025/early 2026.
According to a SEC filing referenced in April 2026, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's total compensation for 2025 was approximately $25.1 million.
Zuck is a saint compared to Ellison and a few others. You should look into them if youre actually interested in knowing who is evil and who is just rich. Zuck literally took a dollar salary while his net worth was driven by his company stock. Putting Nadella and Zuck in the same bin with the actual worst is a big win for the corrupt ones.
Depends who you think the worst is. Snooping on and collecting peoples private data and reading their emails isn’t evil?
Im sure you’d have something to say about evil if you trusted someone with your house keys while you were away only to discover years later they’d installed hidden mics to listen to your private conversations and sell the data on.
If I live in a "company town", the boss being super wealthy IS holding back (somehow? worse off...lol) the town residents who could certainly use a bigger pay check.
Wouldn't really matter how rich the boss was as long he lived a modest lifestyle like Buffet.
Top 1% of incomes account for 10-15% of consumer spending.
Top 20% about 60% of total consumption.
Leaving the bottom 80% roughly 40% of all the goods we produce.
So, we have trillions of dollars sitting in bank accounts of the super wealthy and corporations and we have billions to bomb other countries but not enough to provide health care to our citizens. Sickening.
yeah bigger but you see those trillions sitting around can then be loaned to the poor (at interest), thank the Father, and -
hang on, 2008 is calling brb...
So, we have trillions of dollars sitting in bank accounts of the super wealthy and corporations and we have billions to bomb other countries but not enough to provide health care to our citizens. Sickening.
People can't eat stocks, bonds, money etc. Essentially, the people produce goods and services and consume the goods and services they produce. That's the actual economy. So as I've been saying, if you want people to have more healthcare (or whatever), just get the people producing bombs (or whatever) to produce healthcare instead.
One of the easiest ways to dramatically improve health outcomes while at the same time increasing government revenue would be to tax junk food.
Seems to me that a "company town" wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for 'the company.'
Your starter for 10: can you name something the company wouldn’t exist without?
Depends who you think the worst is. Snooping on and collecting peoples private data and reading their emails isn’t evil?
Im sure you’d have something to say about evil if you trusted someone with your house keys while you were away only to discover years later they’d installed hidden mics to listen to your private conversations and sell the data on.
Zuck is the guy who wants to listen to your conversations so he can coordinate adds to make the most money. Larry Ellison is the guy who wants fund surveillance systems and facial recognition for the government and law enforcement use. He spends a lot advocating for national ID databases and tracking systems. Not the same group. Ftr, zuck would be my number two or three shitstain. He's just a distant second, imo.
Also, Zuck isn't doing anything that China already does in a much larger scale. Larry just wants to add in that govt power here so he can impose the same real-world restrictions here. On second thought, some in this thread might like the guy.
I mean, Nut Nut, where are you? You've found man who's already began the roadmap for you towards his Unified National Database to allow Oracle a complete live map of society just like your team pretends to not want.
"Every citizen would be registered and local community captains would be available to ensure that national directives are carried out at the local level. Our lives would no longer be private and we would no longer be little Gods allowed to operate in world's which were disconnected from the well being of the world at large"
