[ralfy]

Also, ironically nationality (i.e., being an "American") may be partly based on governmental control, i.e., the formation of a state with points concerning sovereignty, etc.

[onlooker]

So the level playing field is not level, because of those lobbyists gaming the system. I am rather apposed to have them attempting to poke my rectum. Aren't you?

Haha. It is not a level playing field either in the US or among rich and poor countries. That is not a glitch in Capitalism. It is a principal feature

[mmasters]

I do feel sorry for the young ones coming up. Costs are getting ridiculous, especially housing and University costs. There's still opportunities but all the low and most the medium hanging fruit has been taken. Menial and entry level jobs don't pay much of anything and some expect a lot out of you. Most of the professors in these Universities are leftist nutjobs too.

Socialism isn't the answer though.

[Pops]

Boomers thought meritocracy was the answer to sticking it to the man. Turns out The Man can afford better schools, better prep, better clubs.

60-80 years ago more of us were refugees, immigrants or 1st, 2nd generation. If you start with nothing, just getting a job made you upwardly mobile.

Dawns on me if that isn't part of what's pissing the old white people? Their parents were depression era kids who saw big improvements in their standard of living over a life: a cheap automatic washer is a far cry from a washboard and sad iron.

hmmm.

[KaiserJeep]

Yet no argument can be made that we are not better off in every way compared to the last generation. We have more income, more stuff, better entertainment, better health, and so forth. Not only that, but the US population has more than doubled in my lifetime, meaning that twice as many people are enjoying the good life as back then.

To make any kind of a case that we are not better off, one has to invent new metrics, satisfaction surveys, debt ratios, so forth. I am suspicious of such. Perhaps we haven't seen as much improvement as from our parents who were comparing to the Great Depression, but that is relative - we are far more prosperous in absolute terms.

It doesn't mean that you don't want more than you have, no matter what your status. Especially that class of Socialist bums who figure they will "tax the rich" and vote themselves more, and not have to work for a living.

[Ibon]

Yet no argument can be made that we are not better off in every way compared to the last generation.

Opiate addiction, obesity, depression, suicides,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i ... ted_States

the annual U.S. suicide rate increased 24% between 1999 and 2014, from 10.5 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 people, the highest rate recorded in 28 years.[6][7] Due to the stigma surrounding suicide, it is suspected that it generally is underreported.[8]

https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-e ... index.html

Opioid Overdose
Opioid overdoses accounted for more than 42,000 deaths in 2016, more than any previous year on record. An estimated 40% of opioid overdose deaths involved a prescription opioid.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/obe ... tates.aspx

By the numbers, 78 million adults and 12 million children are obese—figures many regard as an epidemic.

[Pops]

To make any kind of a case that we are not better off, one has to invent new metrics, satisfaction surveys, debt ratios, so forth.

Not sure who you mean by "we"— I think you're confused because you make more now than when you were 16.

The average worker today is not better off than the average worker when America was great. Telling people they should suck it up because the average global wage is $2 or they should quit whining because they don't dig ditches like gramps did won't make them leave your gated enclave when they get a craw full of the trump con leaving them flatter than the clinton/obama con.

That is the whole point of all of this, not that TVs aren't bigger but that the gains are not equitable. Don't you see the similarity between today's aristocrats and their outsize fortunes a la trumps gilded toilets, and the era known as the Gilded Age of the Robber Barrons? You know that period led to the Bolsheviks and the Wobblies and FDR, right?

Here's the picture:




Blame or credit whatever you want for that very obvious change in fortune but you've likely lived your life on the very same flatline as the average grunt. Yeah, we do have bigger TVs, washers with 2 dozen flashing LEDs, cheap Chinese t-shirts.


We don't have defined benefit pensions, employment stability, affordable medicine, affordable health insurance, or even as much vacation




Or even a decent minimum wage




KJ, you talk a lot about Marx, I suppose because you worry the rabble is going to appropriate your stuff (like them black africans taking away white farms). Marx's theory was that in the end all the productivity that can be wrung out of the worker will have been had and the owners would begin the final battle of acquisition between themselves. That first chart is the picture of the final stage.
Do you think the 99% are gonna continue to suck it up long enough for this headline to come true?

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

.

[onlooker]

Ibon, is showing that "income" improvement is not everything. Other more nuanced methodologies show that Americans are worse off. And Pop is rightfully pointing out that the income gains disproportionately have favored the already wealthy.

Finally, for most of lower economic rungs, inflation has canceled out any income gains and the lower fifth have been losing ground the last few decades

[Cog]

Well this thread was at least useful for identifying the marxists in our midst.

[evilgenius]

The only trouble with criticizing Capitalism outright, for being truly evil, is that it can be organized any number of ways. The people use the law to do that. Minimum wages are an example of that. Child labor laws are an example of that. Society defines right-of-way by either accepting the so called natural order of a thing or process, or not. They can put in place things, under the law, which ameliorate the worst aspects of anything which would otherwise be useful to everyone as a whole. I would argue that we should ask ourselves if that is really what is going on? Why do we call attempts by people in a workplace to collectively bargain Socialist? We do because we allow the side with an interest in unfettered Capitalism to define the argument, I think. In America, the marketing pushing unfettered Capitalism has come with such rhetoric that people can no longer see small steps for what they are. If it can be labeled with the evil banner it has to be confronted with the same emotional reaction as we would otherwise reserve for confiscation. We should separate out those who argue this way out of true fear of confiscation from those who are merely greedy over the loss of something marginal. The counter argument is different for each, and we make the mistake of aiming the wrong one way too often.

[onlooker]

The problem with that analysis Evil, is that Capitalism while open to reform and changes and controls is that inevitably those with the most money and/or clout will attempt to corrupt and rig the entire setup. We saw in the early 20th century with the robber barrons and tycoons who were quite successful at perverting limitations to their power and influence. Which is the same as saying perverting limitations to the power and influence of Money. So my point is that the Level Playing Field will ALWAYS be made unlevel with those with the means/money and motivation to do so.

[Ibon]

So my point is that the Level Playing Field will ALWAYS be made unlevel with those with the means/money and motivation to do so.

While true this is human nature around politiical power and not specific to capitalism. In communism the playing field was hardly level with party apparatchiks equally adept at making the playing field unlevel.
Why do you think many of the former communist party members became some of the most egrigious oligarchs once communism fell and free market forces came into play.

Corruption knows no political ideology.

Regulated capitalism is about the best we will probably ever be able to do. In those heady decades of the 20th century unbridled and unregulated capitalism went hand in hand with abundant resources and a growing population with expanding technology.

The current century has a totally different foundation; crowded world, emerging China, resource base in decline, climate change, fresh water, rising seas.

Does anyone have any doubts about this new foundation requiring an increase in regulations to manage social stability and maximizing and prioritizing the efficiency of declining resources.

In the interests of using remaining fossil fuels to be channeled to higher utility applications one could easily imagine for example government regulation of many of the discretionary uses of fossil fuels. The market alone will not solve this.

This is not anti capitalism, nor is it socialism. It will be adaptation to a shifting foundation.

One could argue that capitalism was the most efficient system in taking us to human overshoot as we shot our collective wad in wasteful use of energy and consumption. But you can't cry over spilt milk.

Increased regulation of capitalism is unavoidable and wont be ideologically driven. It will be pragmatic adaptation to seismic external changes

[Pops]

Regulated capitalism is about the best we will probably ever be able to do. In those heady decades of the 20th century unbridled and unregulated capitalism went hand in hand with abundant resources and a growing population with expanding technology.

I agree.
I guessed way back that democratic capitalism was the best at most efficiently strip mining resources and seeking individual advantage on the up-side of the curve but that on the downside it'll be either feudalism or collectivism, maybe market based, maybe not.

[KaiserJeep]

But what other goals could possibly exist at that time? Recall that the first inkling in popular writings that discussed a limited biosphere was Carson's Silent Spring in 1962. Climate Change was decades away - and the learned science geeks were warning of an impending Ice Age in the time before Earth-facing satellites and computer models, nobody was mentioning warming.

I tend to think that the US Economy is fairly well regulated by law. In fact, it was arguably over-regulated by Obama and those excesses are now being dismantled by Trump. Trump will go too far, in the sense that we describe a great circle as we swirl around the drain, and when the FF's become unaffordable to most, we will live miserably with a fraction of the energy we use now. But that circling the drain from R to L has been happening for a couple of centuries, more or less.

When you think critically about people and how they get along, remember the facts. There are over 190 Capitalist economies today that can not be described as anything other than "successful". There are less than 10 where the jury is still out, they may die or live. The various attempts at Marxism/Socialism show an unbroken record of failure, with over forty outright failures replaced by Capitalism, and another five in the process of failure. China is the single example of a large country following a Marxist government/economy, and it is clearly a very mixed bag of success and failure, with a truly bone-chilling record of human rights abuses.

I'll be the first to admit that Capitalism has problems. Really, it's only virtue is a clear superiority to everything else we have tried.

[Pops]

There are over 190 Capitalist economies today that can not be described as anything other than "successful".

You keep harping on this point but I'm not sure you have a point.

Those 190 are anything but homogeneous. From maybe 70% taxation to just about nil. And then there are market socialist hybrids you may have heard of: China? Germany?

[onlooker]

And then they're are 3 billion or so who live on less than 2 dollars per day. Seems the most successful system managed to leave them behind. And before you say that is due too overpopulation, Just China and India account for almost a third of the world's population yet large swaths of Middle East, Africa and Central and South America are also mired in deep poverty.

[KaiserJeep]

And then they're are 3 billion or so who live on less than 2 dollars per day. Seems the most successful system managed to leave them behind. And before you say that is due too overpopulation, Just China and India account for almost a third of the world's population yet large swaths of Middle East, Africa and Central and South America are also mired in deep poverty.

Let it be known that no government or economic system has ever had the goal of equal distribution of wealth all around the world, it is pure nonsense to judge against a silly nonexistent goal that no one has ever even had.

As for the uneven legal environments of the 190-odd capitalist countries, I could not agree more. Yet I even weary of pointing out that the one large Capitalist country where the most people enjoy the most wealth is the USA. If you want to pick on a large Capitalist country, then India is almost as large as that curious mix of Democracy and Communism, China. India is certainly not a paragon of Capitalism, nor is China at all Socialist, it has full-fledged Communism.

India is the largest Capitalist country, China is the largest Marxist country. Yet all of you want to bash the 3rd largest country, the USA, which is roughly a quarter the size of either China or India. The reason is completely transparent - in your fortunate position amongst the most well-off people in the World, YOU don't have enough to satisfy yourself. So you grumble about your lot in life, and dream about taxing more wealthy folks to make your own life more comfortable. In a world where - as one of you pointed out, 3+ billion live on less than $2/day.

It makes no sense to me, none.

[Pops]

The reason is completely transparent - in your fortunate position amongst the most well-off people in the World, YOU don't have enough to satisfy yourself. So you grumble about your lot in life, and dream about taxing more wealthy folks to make your own life more comfortable. In a world where - as one of you pointed out, 3+ billion live on less than $2/day.

It makes no sense to me, none.

LOL, didn't I just say it Newf?
didn't I just?

[Cog]

Pops has pretty much failed at personal capitalism and projects that everyone has had a similar experience.

[KaiserJeep]

I don't think so, I think Pops discovered that retirement was not all it was cracked up to be. But as for some others in the thread, they are out-n-out losers who believe that Marx was on to something. That's really irrelevant, since we are not having another revolution. Nor are we sharing what we have with poor countries, they will starve while we continue to prosper. After the big power down, the US will struggle to feed itself, we won't export food. China and India will both go under and will constitute the bulk of the population shrinkage that allows a world less cheap FF's survive.

Yes, that's a guess on my part. Why don't you silly people go hoard gold and silver and hope that in the future somebody will trade food to you for it.