It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism for the Rich

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Wealth inequality is actually pretty helpful within a certain range. It promotes competition and innovation, for example. The "wealth inequality" we have, currently, is "bad" because -- by design -- the wealthy buy advantages from legislators, and pay to have their less wealthy competition disadvantaged through legislation and regulation. They love to play lip service to the notion that anyone might be as wealthy as they are, if they just had their drive or motivation, but that is simply not true, except in the statistical sense. And where it *is* true, they employ their code-talkers to disadvantage anyone that might threaten their own status.

If, for example, our political system at all levels wasn't as corrupt as it is, wealth inequality would be less of an issue. The spread between the extremes wouldn't be as large, either.

This is fairly basic stuff. The problem is the whole conversation has been marked as "sacred" and most of us aren't allowed to question it or even discuss it among ourselves in any meaningful way.

If you think I'm being histrionic, look no further than the so-called triple A entertainment industry. The latest thing is literally creating a problem (this game is such a freaking grind) so they can sell you the solution (by "time savers" in the in-game store!). You know what else would work? Not tying the enjoyment of your product to some ridiculous grind in the first place.

Now, extrapolate that issue to the larger world around you. Do you really think, for example, that Verizon doesn't do everything they can, including drafting legislation, to make double sure upstarts can't compete to sell their customers high-speed internet?

How much more do the monopolies fight back against competition in transportation, energy, finance or healthcare?

No, by design, wealth inequality -- to the extent we see it today -- is bad for society because the wealthiest people and companies make the rules their own competition has to follow, drowning innovation and stifling progress.

Not to mention actual real-life people, who have far less influence, as individuals, compared to fictional men (corporations), which is dehumanizing almost by definition.



That's not true. The wealthiest companies and people cannot make the rules by virtue of the fact that they cannot legislate rules on other citizens.

In other words, they are not the government. Rather, the wealthiest people and companies are like you, members of the private sector, private citizens and so on. If you shackle them to some regulation you shackle yourself.

"Influence" means very little to someone who isn't easily influenced. The easily influenced, those who can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, are also the same people big government types want to give more power to.




posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I don't know. I mean, I started a company in the 80's when I was 19 that toured the west coast and actually made money for the whole band and the team we hired to help schlepp our kit and sell our merch.

I love capitalism, competition and innovation, but most people can't afford to relocate to another country tomorrow if a better job comes along. The corporatists certainly can.

Also, if we are going to fund the studies that create new treatments and therapies via our tax dollars, corporatists shouldn't have free reign to charge whatever they want for the drugs developed through that research. That's just common sense.

Corporate socialism is inherently corrupt and anti-capitalist. Wealth inequality -- at the levels seen today -- is the canary in the coal mine screaming "never-ending growth isn't sustainable" and "I can't compete with a company that can literally buy enough votes to make my business unprofitable or even illegal," right before it dies in the street.

Neither can you, BTW.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And people call ME an idealist?

What you just wrote is the literal inversion of the current state of reality.

I don't want "big(ger?)" government. I want better (and more ethical) governance. You can't get better governance through more laws or more regulation, so long as the system remains intact. Capitalism is exactly the kind of thing that prospers when corporate oligarchies collapse.

The problem is complicated by the fact that so many are tied to the current system that such a collapse, even if beneficial in the long term, would certainly be detrimental to the market. We will march two by two into the sea because to not do so would be bad for next quarters P&E, and by extension, much of our "investments," "wages," and "property."



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I don't know. I mean, I started a company in the 80's when I was 19 that toured the west coast and actually made money for the whole band and the team we hired to help schlepp our kit and sell our merch.

I love capitalism, competition and innovation, but most people can't afford to relocate to another country tomorrow if a better job comes along. The corporatists certainly can.

Also, if we are going to fund the studies that create new treatments and therapies via our tax dollars, corporatists shouldn't have free reign to charge whatever they want for the drugs developed through that research. That's just common sense.

Corporate socialism is inherently corrupt and anti-capitalist. Wealth inequality -- at the levels seen today -- is the canary in the coal mine screaming "never-ending growth isn't sustainable" and "I can't compete with a company that can literally buy enough votes to make my business unprofitable or even illegal," right before it dies in the street.

Neither can you, BTW.


No I completely agree with that. Big government means big business and cronyism. The convergence of government and big tech, for example, is breathtaking.

I just don't think wealth inequality is a good enough excuse to make the government bigger.

Yes, people can buy votes and influence, but only so long as they have someone to procure it from.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion
It’s the same old story from the foundation of civilization. Those in power will fight to the death to keep that power. They usually ride the technology wave. Whether it be the bronze, iron, or any other wave that exerts power over the rest of humanity. Technology is the new wave and if history repeats itself humanity will suffer by the powers who controls the new wave.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

And people call ME an idealist?

What you just wrote is the literal inversion of the current state of reality.


No it isn't. But for the sake of argument I'll agree with you if you can show me one these rules.


I don't want "big(ger?)" government. I want better (and more ethical) governance. You can't get better governance through more laws or more regulation, so long as the system remains intact. Capitalism is exactly the kind of thing that prospers when corporate oligarchies collapse.

The problem is complicated by the fact that so many are tied to the current system that such a collapse, even if beneficial in the long term, would certainly be detrimental to the market. We will march two by two into the sea because to not do so would be bad for next quarters P&E, and by extension, much of our "investments," "wages," and "property."


I agree with you. Like me, your issue is with the government, which is just another monopoly of sorts. But my other issue is with those who would rather give more power to the government. That's what the author of the article was championing, and we should oppose it while we still can.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JON666

Yes, that's big data turning on us in a nutshell. But I think there's more to this than mere technocracy, the result of a certain underlying mindset.


“As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on the very ideology which enslaves them. The misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done to them is a greater force than the cunning of the authorities.”

T. Adorno, Dialectics of Enlightenment



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

More power to the gubmint? You didn't even read the piece, which is probably why you have no idea what the author really was "championing".


Much of the inequality we see today in richer countries is more down to decisions made by governments than to irreversible market forces. These decisions can be changed. However, we have to want to control inequality: we must make inequality reduction a central aim of government policy and wider society. The most entrenched, self-deluding and self-perpetuating justifications for inequality are about morality, not economy. The great economist John Kenneth Galbraith nicely summarised the problem: “One of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy … is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor.”



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JON666

Until we reach a technological singularity.

At some point there will be a time when advertisements and middle men will be null in the capitalist model. I think we are sort of in the early stages of that right now. We click on even just a random link to what we see is 'our' interest, and we are bombarded with advertisements fit for our likes and wants.

Eventually will google or amazon be needed and we can ultimately just tap into a manufacturer for a product? I guess the only middle men left would be delivery systems.
On top of all this automation should never, ever be ignored, it has already crept up into our lives and people STILL ignore it. Just look at what GM has done, and people don't blame the company itself, they blame cheap labor off the backs of other nations where standard of living is much lower. Truth is, Gm and the live are driving their company towards automation.

Technology is something that never goes backwards unless it's suppressed in some way, but eventually it will catch up to us and it cannot be suppressed. The big question then becomes, what happens when every human can tap into such technology?

Let his sink in a little, go back not even 100 years and libraries were a source of knowledge. And knowledge was the main source of 'power', even having a highschool education meant you were above and beyond the regular citizen. Now every person on this planet has the potential to tap into an almost unlimited source of knowledge, the internet.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

More power to the gubmint? You didn't even read the piece, which is probably why you have no idea what the author really was "championing".


Much of the inequality we see today in richer countries is more down to decisions made by governments than to irreversible market forces. These decisions can be changed. However, we have to want to control inequality: we must make inequality reduction a central aim of government policy and wider society. The most entrenched, self-deluding and self-perpetuating justifications for inequality are about morality, not economy. The great economist John Kenneth Galbraith nicely summarised the problem: “One of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy … is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor.”



I did read it. Maybe you can tell me why we must make inequality reduction a central aim of government policy and wider society? See if you can answer for yourself, for once.

By the way, sierra Leone and Burundi have less wealth inequality than the US. Aren't you worried about the correlation between their their lower ratio of wealth inequality and extreme child poverty?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I am liking the discussion. And to be honest, I guess I am sort of surgeon, although much more forgiving if I make a mistake. I am a structural welder. I like to think outside the box, a lot when I am in the zone laying down molten metal(s).



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

How would you factor in the happiness and relative quality of life with that mind set?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

How would you factor in the happiness and relative quality of life with that mind set?


I can understand that one might feel unhappy about his happiness and quality of life if he compares it to the ultra wealthy.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

The quality of life in lets say Vietnam is much different compared to say, Germany. But are people unhappy there? Vietnam is basically a communist society. But does that affect their happiness?
edit on 13-6-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Whats actually more important?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

If you are comparing quality of life from Vietnam to a western nation its apples to oranges, of you are comparing what happiness means to a western family to a non it is completely different.

I for one would rather a life of happiness compared to a life of western quality of life where I am almost forced to work, and keep up with trends, etc etc. But I am a very introverted person, so it might just be me.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

At the same time we see people being overwhelmed and mislead by the sheer mass of information in case they don't bring the media literacy to filter the material. There's this certain aspect of automation involved in dismissing information which doesn't fit the personal agenda, and thus rather provokes cognitive dissonance in defense for beloved concepts.

Who would have thought that the increased accessibility of (contradicting) information would have the potential to actually perpetuate ignorance?
Just sharing thoughts here. Automation might increase efficiency, but it certainly comes at a price.

However. I'm not convinced that said singularity, the moment self-aware AI surpasses us humans, cannot be part of the solution. Same with automation that results in less hard labor, which essentially could set people free to explore the inner universe instead.
But this 4th industrial revolution doesn't come with an UBI. Well. Not unless we decide to have it that way, and make corporate dimwits with their lust for profits aware that robots don't buy cars, of course.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf




I did read it. Maybe you can tell me why we must make inequality reduction a central aim of government policy and wider society?


I could, but I'd rather read your reason to do so. Any thoughts why this might be a cool thing to do?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

And how is the socialism provided by democrats working for "poor people" in California for example, or New York, or Chicago?...

People forget that these were the same arguments made in the past which caused countries to embrace socialism which made things worse for everyone. Yet the left want to fall in the same hole again proclaiming "it's not going to happen this time," when in fact they want the same old policies that made things worse for billions of people all over the world...



edit on 13-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I haven't read all the thread yet but my initial thoughts;

As far as I can tell - and I know a damn sight more about the UK than I do the US - but to me its obvious that far too much wealth and influence is in the hands of far too few people.

To alter that would require a step change in the way so many people think.

We in the UK need urgent and radical reform of our electoral and parliamentary systems and a significant move away from the 'cronyism capitalism' that causes the boom and bust economics that rarely benefits the vast majority of people but the untouchable elite always seem to benefit and profit from.

MSM and elites have brainwashed people into believing there is no viable alternative to the current system.

I have a few ideas, but I don't profess to have all the answers, just a few suggestions.
Far more informed, educated and intelligent people than me also have ideas....but they aren't encouraged and are immediately demonised for suggesting alternatives.

Personally I find it morally obscene that so few people can amass so much wealth, generally on the back of others endeavours or have some sort of inherited privileged birth right.

I hear about 'trickle down economics', it doesn't work, never has done.

I really can't understand how so many people don't see that there needs to be a bit of levelling the land.

But I guess many will just think that I'm some sort of damn, pinko commie British bastard who wants everything handing on a plate.
Nothing could be further from the truth....I just think things should, and most definitely could, be a damn sight better than what they are now.

I probably haven't expressed myself very well.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join