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
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
Allow me to translate: "Nobody gets to be free, except me and my selected few".
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.
Sorry, we had a collective vote and your side lost. We preferred whatever goods and services the rich were providing over healthcare.
As I said earlier ITT, just because rich people don’t spend as high of a % of their income every year doesn’t mean what they are doing with their money doesn’t help the poor/middle class. I don’t know about you, but I was able to buy a house because some rich guy left a bunch of money in the bank.
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.
If your boss wasn’t super wealthy the next 10 people who were going to start a business may not take the risk to quit their job to start another company which may end up employing your neighbor.
By the sound of your description of your made up town it sounds like you wouldn’t have a town if we didn’t have strong incentives in place for people to take risk.
If your boss wasn’t super wealthy the next 10 people who were going to start a business may not take the risk to quit their job to start another company which may end up employing your neighbor.
LOL, I just read this gem. Unbelievable.
We preferred whatever goods and services the rich were providing over healthcare.
he said without an ounce of self-awareness
I was able to buy a house because some rich guy left a bunch of money in the bank
[ ] necessary condition
[ ] sufficient condition
[ ] efficient condition
[*] none of the above
Sorry, we had a collective vote and your side lost. We preferred whatever goods and services the rich were providing over healthcare. Bingo!As I said earlier ITT, just because rich people don’t spend as high of a % of their income every year doesn’t mean what they are doing with their money doesn’t help the poor/middle class. I don’t know about you, but I was able to buy a hous
Mind-boggling to think that anyone believes that Bezos' yacht benefits society more than providing healthcare to someone that can't afford it. Just mind-boggling.
Trumpers are always a mix of horrible and incredibly stupid. I always figured baba was much more stupid than horrible, but he's enlightened me now.
Are you saying it is "unbelievable" that king spew doesn't understand how incentives work and how if there isn't enough upside that some people who would otherwise start a company that would improve the lives of others wouldn't do so because the risk of them losing everything isn't worth the reward or are you saying my fact is unbelievable? Care to elaborate why you think either is unbelievable?
I'm not sure what this has to do with self-awareness. This is just a common sense - that in a free country people get to choose what they spend their money on and it is extremely common that people often choose to buy products and services from rich people because those rich people worked their tails off to create a product which improves the lives of the everyday man.
[ ] necessary condition
[ ] sufficient condition
[ ] efficient condition
[*] none of the above
The bank could not have given me a loan if people didn't loan the bank money. Rich people have more money than poor people and they tend to have more in the bank than the avg poor person. What part of this are you disagreeing with?
Mind-boggling to think that anyone believes that Bezos' yacht benefits society more than providing healthcare to someone that can't afford it. Just mind-boggling.
LOL at blaming reagan for the wealth gap. Like there wasn't a wealth gap before his time or there isn't a wealth gap in other countries.
Look at the where the net worth of the bottom 20%, 2nd to bottom 20%, middle 20%, 2nd highest 20% and highest 20% and how much their net worth has grow over the last 20 years and you will notice that the higher the net worth the better the growth and the higher % those people have invested in stocks and private companies. The poorer people are they more they have (as a % of their NW) in cash/checking/savings accounts, real estate and defined benefit plans (like a pension or SS). If you want to narrow the wealth gap in this country the best solution is to get rid of SS and convince the lower middle class to put less money into homes/cars and more into stocks.
There are over 300 million people worldwide (according to chatgpt) that have said their lives are better with an amazon membership than without one and an additional 300 million have bought something from amazon in the last 10 years without a membership, amazon employees 1.5M people and around 200 million people own amazon stock so why do you think we should punish a guy for improving the lives of over 800 million people? I would love to see you go up to bazos and say "hey I know you have improved the lives of 800 million people, but I'm jealous that you have a yacht and I don't so we are going to take your yacht and sell it because we don't think you are helping enough people."
LOL at blaming reagan for the wealth gap. Like there wasn't a wealth gap before his time or there isn't a wealth gap in other countries. Look at the where the net worth of the bottom 20%, 2nd to bottom 20%, middle 20%, 2nd highest 20% and highest 20% and how much their net worth has grow over the last 20 years and you will notice that the higher the net worth the better the gro
Thanks for reminding me to never wrestle with a pig.
I'm glad I could help, biggerboat. I think you could extend this lesson beyond just our conversation today. It is a good general rule to not argue with someone in an arena that they are familiar with and you aren't. In the same way we shouldn't wrestle a pig in a mud pit, you shouldn't wrestle with me about the economy and I shouldn't wrestle with you about boats (unless you venture the boat debate into economics, like the harm it would cause an economy if we were to destroy yachts purely based on jealous steaming from someone being rewarded "too much" for improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people).
I'm glad I could help, biggerboat. I think you could extend this lesson beyond just our conversation today. It is a good general rule to not argue with someone in an arena that they are familiar with and you aren't. In the same way we shouldn't wrestle a pig in a mud pit, you shouldn't wrestle with me about the economy and I shouldn't wrestle with you about boats (unless you ve
Awesome. Thanks. Now can you explain Dunning-Kruger for me?
[QUOTE=bahbah]you shouldn't wrestle with me about the economy[/QUOTE]
convince the lower middle class to put less money into homes/cars and more into stocks
amazing
The bank could not have given me a loan if people didn't loan the bank money. Rich people have more money than poor people and they tend to have more in the bank than the avg poor person. What part of this are you disagreeing with?
Why exactly are we concerned with the banks' ability to lend money to people to have a home?
The average cost to build a house in the U.S. is $323,026. rocketmortgage
One billion dollars can thus build about 3,095 homes.
Top 5 billionaires' net worth in billions, per
:
Musk 803.7
Page 343.6
Brin 298.4
Bezos 277.7
Ellison 241.9
Let's say we leave each of these five guys with 200 billion dollars and redistribute the rest strictly for new home builds.
That's 2,988,304 homes instantly paid for, and all of those guys still have more money than can be spent with zero contribution for probably two or three generations of insanely luxurious living.
For perspective, we had about 771,480 homeless people in 2024.
So that's five people being taxed down to still have an obscene amount of wealth to solve the homelessness problem three times over, and that's based on average home prices, not even base-level $138,523 (about 1/3 of the average, so triple the number of homes built and you get 8,964,912). From five people, and without coordinated economy of scale or social cost offsets behind a national program.
Why exactly are we concerned with the banks' ability to lend money to people to have a home?
Most people in the US can not afford a house in the USA without a loan. However, I don't care if a bank gives them the loan or the loan comes from an individual or some other business.
It isn't just homes that people are able to afford because people (most rich people) leave money in a bank. Those banks also loan money out for people to buy cars, businesses to build factories and so many other things.
The average cost to build a house in the U.S. is $323,026. rocketmortgageOne billion dollars can thus build about 3,095 homes.Top 5 billionaires' net worth in billions, per
:Musk 803.7Page 343.6Brin 298.4Bezos 277.7Ellison 241.9Let's say we leave each of these five guys with 200 billion dollars and redistribute the rest strictly for new home builds.That's 2,988,304 homesSo your idea to better the lives of the middle class in the US is to take money away from the most productive members of our society to give to people who are far less productive?
If we did what you outline above and we assume your 771k homeless people today is correct wow many will we have in 20 years? Please explain your answer if you don't think that number will at least double since so many people will not work in hopes of another genius like you will rise to power and say "hey why don't we take a bunch of money from some of the people in the top .01% of people who have improved the most amount of lives in our society and give it to people who aren't able to afford a home?"
Think about it this way, what would our quality of life be like if we took 80% of the wealth from the top 100 richest people in the US every 10 (or 20 years) for the past 250 years?
LOL at saying taking that money from the rich would solve the homeless problem.
In 2025, mid-size yachts in the popular 56–79 foot range averaged about $1.18 million, according to the U.S. Boats Group market index. cit
I don't think you are appreciating the scale of the wealth gap at hand.
All of the 5 people you mention have improved my life. I think cutting their tax rate to 0% will improve the lives of middle class America more than your idea of just taking all their money above some made up number you think is enough for them. Imagine what new product or service they will come out with next if you let them keep everything they earn and how many billions (yes, billions) of peoples' lives will be improved by that decision.
FYI there is an article in yesterday's WSJ that is right on topic of this thread.
The title of the artile is "the red-blue economic divide" and it talks about how red states are moving more pro-growth (lowering or eliminating income taxes, cutting regulation, decreasing the strength of govt unions, school choice, etc.) and blue states are moving more anti-growth (higher taxes, bigger handouts, more regulation, greater union power, and fewer cops).
Even though many blue states have the advantage of being on the coast, if this tread continues, it likely means capitalism will never die. The longer capitalism lives the more data there is to prove it is by far the greatest economic system man has ever seen.
*the red states that are significantly subsidized by the blue states
In other news, how 'bout those jobs numbers?
All of the 5 people you mention have improved my life. I think cutting their tax rate to 0% will improve the lives of middle class America more than your idea of just taking all their money above some made up number you think is enough for them. Imagine what new product or service they will come out with next if you let them keep everything they earn and how many billions (yes,
doesn't your logic dictate that their wealth makes it unnecessary for their continued productivity?
*the red states that are significantly subsidized by the blue states
In other news, how 'bout those jobs numbers?
soon every state will be a red state, and then we can all work harder and longer, with unrestrained police everywhere, and we'll be kept hungry enough to keep turning the wheels while we're forced to gamble our financial position at the point we're physically unable to keep grinding
Taxing the Uber rich at a much higher rate is definitely better than the status quo but just blowing it homes or sending everyone a paycheck isnt going to lead to the promise land like people just seem to think it would.
It would be far better to use that taxed money towards universal health, education, better jobs and such than a Trump check. Its just getting far more in return that will last - and with less inflation. Because we are going to have to find a way to fund those things anyway.
to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we buy everyone a house and call it a day
that example was construed to respond specifically to the proposition that homes require loans
the broader point is that all property exists not in an absolute state but in relation to an entire system of laws that situate what it means to be "property"
there's the simple idea of "I made it, it's mine" and then there's the context of "I had roads" and "people were prevented from attacking me", and these examples are not things that everyone can take for granted
Jimbo can't just go out and work up a Microsoft with enough grit and ingenuity
he has to have access to elite social relationships and be sheltered by wide-ranging security to get there
this isn't anything new, bootstraps etc, but we still see the underlying expectations in right wing economic programs
healthcare, education, housing, freedom from theft and physical abuse - these are things that the State is specially equipped to provide and which enable people to accomplish great things
if we want more people to take risks on new ideas and to perform public goods that don't have immediate and individual value, then we should provide supports to catch those who respectively fail or commit their lives to those pursuits, and if we legislatively condition extreme comfort on the support of these things, then we're doing it right.
