Lifestyles of the rich and famous: Obscene wealth inequality at it's worst

reply to post by macman


Hillary Clinton turns me off, not on.

I dont want more laws, I want less laws. Laws that make sense for everyone, not just for the rich. Laws that are equally enforceable.

I dont want an enormous and over-bearing wasteful and intrusive government like we have now. Its a government by the rich and for the rich. That is what we have now.

If you keep thinking purely in terms of government size it wont make sense to you. If my oponnent has the best lawyer than that lawyer is of no good to me. He works against me, not for me. Simarily a big government working against the people is not only wasteful, but extremely dangerous.

Of course government shares the blame in the decisions it makes, but capitalism tends to become cronyish after a while. Especially when the citizens fall asleep and dont care. The more the laws are in favor of big business and the rich, the more rich the rich become, and the more bribes they make. Its a downward spiral to hell.

Contrary a socialist government is not elitist in type. Sure it tends to be authoritarian and big, but it works for the people aka society.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You make a case for Libertarianism perfectly, then shoot it right in the foot with your last statement that attempts to spin Socialism in some fantastic light.

The cronyism comes when Govt gets involved.

The issue is still the Govt.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

So you agree with the spirit of competition within free market economics but you are ok with monopolies. Seems legit.

First, it is rather ridiculous how you chose to answer to my post when I didn't disagree with a truly free market monopoly. Notice how I didn't even use the word monopoly in that post but you somehow extrapolated that I am ok with them.

Yet you totally ignored my post when I called you out for your default support of governments' MONOPOLIZED use of force (that is required to break down monopolies).

I'm ok with an earned monopoly, something that doesn't use the governments' mafia-like nature to prey on small companies and people. However, I know in a truly free market, no company can stay on top forever. Motorola, Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, etc...

What is your definition of a monopoly? a company that demands 90+% of the consumer market? How about some examples? How about Cal Trans? Am Trak? Federal Reserve Bank? All government created monopolies.

But wait...........................in your fantasy world, isn't the government supposed to be in charge of breaking monopolies!?!? How can government break their own monopoly!?!?!

OP's mind = blown

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Yes, thank you for re-posting my example about Apple but the OP didn't answer it then and I'm pretty sure he won't answer it now (maybe with some off-topic counter that has nothing to do with Apple but makes him seem smart for .01 seconds until you read the whole thing, then you just realize he is being childish and avoiding the topic at hand).

Some people just don't understand ANY form of economics or even morality, the OP of this thread is desperately trying to cling onto his original arguments, which has started to fall apart as soon as real free market advocates stepped into this thread.


The OP says government is needed to break monopolies but has absolutely ZERO complaints over government monopolies over various industries, and a monopoly over the worst of them all, VIOLENCE.

eLPresidente

What is your definition of a monopoly? a company that demands 90+% of the consumer market? How about some examples? How about Cal Trans? Am Trak? Federal Reserve Bank? All government created monopolies.

But wait...........................in your fantasy world, isn't the government supposed to be in charge of breaking monopolies!?!? How can government break their own monopoly!?!?!

OP's mind = blown

edit on 25-10-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

The federal reserve, debate commision, am trak, cal trans, democrats and republican parties, etc seem like illegal trusts to me. How about anti-trust and rico laws?

The american government itself is rumored to be a corporation, as well as all the alphabet agencies. I posted them a while back but no one took me seriously.

Who are the stockholders of these private corporations? hmmmm

DeadSeraph
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

Under that scenario, the competition can't DO ANYTHING because there IS NO COMPETITION. It's a monopoly...

Under which scenario?

The scenario where Apple puts out a super-duper product, or the scenario where Apple appeals to the government? Because, in the former scenario, there is nothing there to actually stop Apple's competition from making a better product--and in the latter scenario, Apple's competition is quashed by the force of government.

So, uh, if you are talking about the former scenario, what is there that is impeding Apple's competition?

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is an international financial institution which offers investment, advisory, and asset management services to encourage private sector development in developing countries. The IFC is a member of the World Bank Group and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States. It was established in 1956 as the private sector arm of the World Bank Group to advance economic development by investing in strictly for-profit and commercial projects which reduce poverty and promote development.[1][2][3] The IFC's stated aim is to create opportunities for people to escape poverty and achieve better living standards by mobilizing financial resources for private enterprise, promoting accessible and competitive markets, supporting businesses and other private sector entities, and creating jobs and delivering necessary services to those who are poverty-stricken or otherwise vulnerable.[4] Since 2009, the IFC has focused on a set of development goals which its projects are expected to target. Its goals are to increase sustainable agriculture opportunities, improve health and education, increase access to financing for microfinance and business clients, advance infrastructure, help small businesses grow revenues, and invest in climate health.[5]

The IFC is owned and governed by its member countries, but has its own executive leadership and staff which conduct its normal business operations. It is a corporation whose shareholders are member governments which provide paid-in capital and which have the right to vote on its matters. Originally more financially integrated with the World Bank Group, the IFC was established separately and eventually became authorized to operate as a financially autonomous entity and make independent investment decisions. It offers an array of debt and equity financing services and helps companies face their risk exposures, while refraining from participating in a management capacity. The corporation also offers advice to companies on making decisions, evaluating their impact on the environment and society, and being responsible. It advises governments on building infrastructure and partnerships to further support private sector development.

So the IMF is part of the IFC, which is part of the World Bank group. The world bank group being the parent international company.

Anybody still think we have socialism? Give me a break!

EarthCitizen07

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

LewsTherinThelamon

DeadSeraph
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

Under that scenario, the competition can't DO ANYTHING because there IS NO COMPETITION. It's a monopoly...

Under which scenario?

The scenario where Apple puts out a super-duper product, or the scenario where Apple appeals to the government? Because, in the former scenario, there is nothing there to actually stop Apple's competition from making a better product--and in the latter scenario, Apple's competition is quashed by the force of government.

So, uh, if you are talking about the former scenario, what is there that is impeding Apple's competition?

The grasping of the straws will become more and more desperate as each post goes on to intellectually challenge the mentality of the OP.

I still have heard no response for my Apple example, even after you quoted it. I saw nothing.

eLPresidente

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

But aren't government monopolies, since they are corporations, part of capitalism?

If the american government, its central bank, the IMF and World Bank are all corporations, then how can there be any socialism involved?

For the record I am ok with natural monopolies, I mean those that form naturally via competition.

And at some point the mega shareholders of big business, are also shareholders of government monopolies. At least this makes sense to me. Remember standard oil back in the 20s? Today they own citigroup and much more(hint federal reserve).

As for amtrak maybe the vanderbilts? They built the tracks, owned the trains, built the stations, etc.

Old money talks, bull# walks. haaha coined my own phrase!

EarthCitizen07

eLPresidente

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

But aren't government monopolies, since they are corporations, part of capitalism?

If the american government, its central bank, the IMF and World Bank are all corporations, then how can there be any socialism involved?

For the record I am ok with natural monopolies, I mean those that form naturally via competition.

And at some point the mega shareholders of big business, are also shareholders of government monopolies. At least this makes sense to me. Remember standard oil back in the 20s? Today they own citigroup and much more(hint federal reserve).

As for amtrak maybe the vanderbilts? They built the tracks, owned the trains, built the stations, etc.

Old money talks, bull# walks. haaha coined my own phrase!

edit on 25/10/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

I thought you already understood the differences between capitalism, fascism, and crony capitalism.

For instance, if the Federal Reserve was a fully private bank and was not put in control of the US monetary system through LAW, how would they have the immense power that they have today? Without the government, the banks can still collude and merge their attention in one place but they would still have to compete. If another bank found a way to loan money to the US government at a lower interest rate with less risks involved, a good, limited and fiscally responsible government would choose the best deal for the people. Its called competitive contracting, something that our current government does not understand, case in point, Obamacare website.

As for Am Trak, it is in no way a private capitalistic entity, if it was, they wouldn't receive funding from the government.

The internet is probably the most freest market place in the world, there are no monopolies on the internet and it essentially regulates itself (or at least it will until the government passes internet censorship laws).

I mean, imagine if the internet had to follow the same broad laws decided by a group of people who don't know the difference between ATS and Youtube. We, at the local level get to choose which websites we want to register for and which rules we are comfortable with voluntarily following. If you like Youtube, register for Youtube, if you like ATS, register for ATS. If you're not cool with Google, nobody is putting a gun to your head to register...until the government gets involved.

And lastly, for the record, the only form of socialism that can work is voluntary socialism, an actual community of people who believe in the same ideals working to make their lives better as a collective. They'll have to sacrifice personal reward, property, and the benefits of competition.

I wouldn't be happy in a socialistic community because I believe I have the rights to my labor and how I choose to exercise my rights is up to me as long as I'm not harming others. The beautiful part of all of this is, if you have a different belief system, do whatever you want as long as it doesn't trample over my rights or harm other people.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Facism was national socialism in italy during the 30s and 40s. It was *nationalism* plus *socialism*. Nationalism does not necessarily imply imperialism though as is commonly thought. Its simply means the nation comes first. National socialism is different from plain socialism in this way.

National Socialism is the opposite of what we have to today, which is international capitalism.

Again the national government of usa is classified as a corporation with file numbers and all. This also means the alphabet agencies are included. With socialism I dont believe there any corporations allowed because industry is nationalised. Small business, such as family owned and operated, are allowed.

I am not saying america or any country should be socialist. They can be whatever they want. Capitalism is fine. Capitalism from top to bottom. Even the government is involved in making a profit and that is what the debt reflects. It means the stockholders of USA, Inc have lots of money coming to them because the government corporation is wasteful, spending too much money on wars and minority welfare payments.

Do you see my point? I am not trying to be funny.

eLPresidente

EarthCitizen07

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

Give me a break. Where did I ever say I support the federal reserve? You are trying to paint me as a socialist or like some kind of government lapdog when nothing could be further from the truth. I support the ideas behind libertarianism. I don't think the government should be poking its nose in peoples lives. But the problem is that corporations aren't individual citizens yet in the U.S they have been awarded the same rights. That seems ass backwards to me.

I don't believe a hands off approach to economics works because history has shown that it doesn't. There needs to be a balance. You sit there and claim that a natural monopoly is somehow ok because no company can last forever but your case doesn't take into account what an actual monopoly even IS:

monopoly
məˈnɒp(ə)li/Submit
noun
1.
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

If a corporation becomes so grossly inflated that it is able to buy out and shut down it's competition then your example crumbles to dust. It's happened in the past, and your use of microsoft as an example is a piss poor analogy since microsoft itself has faced anti-trust litigation in the past. There is a reason that even in the U.S (which is probably the most right leaning country in the world from an economic standpoint) there are anti-trust laws. The fact you can't wrap your brain around why they are in place or what purpose they serve has no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

For all of you who have championed a hands off approach in this thread, I'd like you to answer a hypothetical question for me:

If we eliminate all laws and regulations which govern economics and business, what is your opinion of a multinational foreign owned corporation coming in to the U.S and buying a monopoly on an american business sector (say the mobile telecommunications industry), and then outsourcing all of it's labor to third world countries to maximize profits? Take any industry and apply the same yardstick. Now you have americans out of work, foreign corporations making gross profits from American people, and all of that money sitting in an offshore bank account somewhere doing nothing to stimulate the American economy. Under your preferred system, that is perfectly acceptable is it not?

Under a completely FREE system, nothing would be in place to stop foreign interests from buying up entire swaths of national resources. The Chinese could waltz in and buy the entire American Oil industry or any other natural resource sector. Not even Uncle Sam is stupid enough to leave that door open...

DeadSeraph

eLPresidente

EarthCitizen07

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

For all of you who have championed a hands off approach in this thread, I'd like you to answer a hypothetical question for me:

If we eliminate all laws and regulations which govern economics and business, what is your opinion of a multinational foreign owned corporation coming in to the U.S and buying a monopoly on an american business sector (say the mobile telecommunications industry), and then outsourcing all of it's labor to third world countries to maximize profits? Take any industry and apply the same yardstick. Now you have americans out of work, foreign corporations making gross profits from American people, and all of that money sitting in an offshore bank account somewhere doing nothing to stimulate the American economy. Under your preferred system, that is perfectly acceptable is it not?

To answer your question, I don't believe in protectionism. You are advocating protectionism.

If I had a company and I wanted to sell it and the government came and said I can't sell it to who I want, who owns my company? me or the government? Think about it.

To make it more simple for you, if you wanted to trade your spoon for my fork and the government said you are not allowed to trade your spoon with my fork, who owns your spoon?

Topics like this, you don't need to complicate it, it all boils down to morality and rights.

Now answer my apple example, you have still yet to respond to it.

DeadSeraph

eLPresidente

EarthCitizen07

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

Give me a break. Where did I ever say I support the federal reserve? You are trying to paint me as a socialist or like some kind of government lapdog when nothing could be further from the truth. I support the ideas behind libertarianism. I don't think the government should be poking its nose in peoples lives. But the problem is that corporations aren't individual citizens yet in the U.S they have been awarded the same rights. That seems ass backwards to me.

You have entirely missed the point and it makes sense because you do not want to face and reflect upon your self-contradiction.

I didn't say you supported the federal reserve, I said you are silent on government monopolies in the very thread you are advocating the government to tear down what they decide is a [supposedly] private monopoly.

If a government can't be trusted to avoid monopolies, how can they be trusted to break down other monopolies?

If Apple made a phone so good, so efficient, and so popular that they took 90% of the smartphone market share, would that trigger you to demand the federal government to split up Apple's assets and maybe give some parts of Apple's company to maybe politicians? Or maybe make Apple's new USA assembly public property? Who are you to say that a company that makes products people want can't have a supermajority of the market share? Is it even possible?

-Of course not. If there are still companies competing against apple (foreign or domestic) and there is still a window for competition, there is no need for the government to intervene at all.

-Why the hell would I support giving shares of any corporation to politicians? Have you even read my posts?

-There are numerous corporations that already dominate markets, but the laws which are in place prevent them from having complete monopolies... I'm not sure why you can't grasp that...

It would appear that you and I will never see eye to eye on the issue. The example I gave in my last post is a very good case for WHY there needs to be laws and regulations in place. The economic crash of 2008 and subsequent banker bailouts were a great example of what deregulation can cause, and yet people are sitting here screaming for even less regulation and more power for corporations and big business? Totally insane.

eLPresidente

DeadSeraph

eLPresidente

EarthCitizen07

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY INC. (CIA)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITION CORP.
For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

SOCIAL SECURITY CORP, DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

www.metatech.org...

hmnm hmm

I'm sure the OP is speechless right about now, the silence is deadening....

So many government monopolies, so little outrage by the monopoly haters. If anything, free market advocates are MORE anti-monopoly than the OP.

Give me a break. Where did I ever say I support the federal reserve? You are trying to paint me as a socialist or like some kind of government lapdog when nothing could be further from the truth. I support the ideas behind libertarianism. I don't think the government should be poking its nose in peoples lives. But the problem is that corporations aren't individual citizens yet in the U.S they have been awarded the same rights. That seems ass backwards to me.

You have entirely missed the point and it makes sense because you do not want to face and reflect upon your self-contradiction.

I didn't say you supported the federal reserve, I said you are silent on government monopolies in the very thread you are advocating the government to tear down what they decide is a [supposedly] private monopoly.

If a government can't be trusted to avoid monopolies, how can they be trusted to break down other monopolies?

So if the government can't be trusted (which I think we can both agree on), who can be trusted to keep corporations in check? Will you at least agree that SOME regulation is needed?

eLPresidente

To answer your question, I don't believe in protectionism. You are advocating protectionism.

That right there means you like international capitalism. Protectionist measures are intended to protect the local economy. Without them what will stop any and all corporations that have enough capital from packing up and giving the finger to most american workers who supposedly demand too much compensation and benefits?

Now I can see why people hate minimum wage laws. They want to make usa equivilant to china, taiwan, india, north korea, etc. They want to lure business back to america by screwing the american workers, because apparently business is much more important than the workers.

This is quite immoral. I am suprised that you fail to see this.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


If I have gathered right, you are saying that because they are rich, they should not live how they wish but instead give up their wealth in the name of altruism and compassion? Am I getting that right?!