• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    109
Sure, if they have the right skill set.

How many labors went out and got degrees in computer science?

So there are 100 million plus programming jobs out there?

and ANYBODY can be a programmer? Or has the talent to be a content creator?

look up "post labor economy" and get back to me.

Your memes are making you look foolish.

Happens sometimes, don't feel bad.
 
We were communists when societies consisted of a few dozen people and had no resources. It easy to be equals when everyone is starving. Once you start meeting basic human needs for survival and societies grow larger and more complex, keeping that equality is antithetical to functionality. Inequality has always been a feature of settled civilization.

If you want communism, feel free to move back into the woods.

1. Granted, equal outcome is easier with a very small range of circumstances, especially when generally being dead or alive with only food quantity in between.
2. Let's not confuse equal outcome with equal opportunity. Women were property in ancient society and surely not granted any kind of political or legal equality.

You seem to have combined the 'noble savage' with a superficial interpretation of communism, and there's no validity to either.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that you have this fantasy that people who regard social equality as a good thing are themselves likely to be impoverished, or lacking in financial acumen.

In general, I find that people who think in such limited stereotypes an be quite blinkered when considering investment options.

That is because those who have money and want to help out the less fortunate actually put their money where their mouth is and donate. Its the difference between the talkers and the walkers, and talking never made anyone rich.
 
Just because money doesn't buy happiness doesn't mean that inequality has no function.

I don't recall calling for equality - I merely pointed out the fact that a global rich set now exist who often migrate to wherever the tax system suits them best and they are as global as the money they make. In terms of London I did point out that a lot of the super rich were actually from a multitude of countries around the globe. :)
 
So there are 100 million plus programming jobs out there?

and ANYBODY can be a programmer? Or has the talent to be a content creator?

look up "post labor economy" and get back to me.

Your memes are making you look foolish.

Happens sometimes, don't feel bad.

So, there are 100,000,000 unemployed laborers here in the United States?

Are you sure about that, Clark? That seems foolish even for you.

Of course I didn't say all 100,000,000 unemployed laborers that you've counted here in the United States can only get jobs in programing. I said if they had the right skill set they could find jobs and that was an example of a skill set.

How many got degrees in computer science?

How about degrees in engineering?

Applied math?

Physics?

IT?

How many of these 100,000,000 that you see went out to earn degrees or certificates in less difficult fields? How many of them became dental hygienists or LPNs? How many of them obtained a degree in physical education for elementary education?

Maybe a better question for you is how many people sat their fat asses down on couches across the United States looking for a handout because they choose not to retrain and find new jobs?
 
I don't recall calling for equality - I merely pointed out the fact that a global rich set now exist who often migrate to wherever the tax system suits them best and they are as global as the money they make. In terms of London I did point out that a lot of the super rich were actually from a multitude of countries around the globe. :)

And whats your point? Let me ask you a question, do you shop at a market that best suits your needs, or do you decide to pay more for a lower quality service just because? Free markets means money will flow where the return is the highest and that in turn ensures maximum efficiency. Taxes are no different, without a free diffusion of money from one area to another, countries would have no motivation to maximize the efficiency of their tax systems. Otherwise, the dead-weight losses would just continue to grow larger and larger while R&D and capital investments continue to grow smaller and smaller.

I'm just waiting for the day when our government stops thinking they can fit a square peg into a round hole; and decides to develop a land value tax.
 
So there are 100 million plus programming jobs out there?

and ANYBODY can be a programmer? Or has the talent to be a content creator?

look up "post labor economy" and get back to me.

Your memes are making you look foolish.

Happens sometimes, don't feel bad.

Talking about a "post-labor" economy makes you look foolish. This is what happens when you attempt to teach post-modern pothead sociologists economics. They don't fix their stupidity, instead they inject their stupidity into economics.
 
No, I think other nations protect their lazy and unmotivated using any measure necessary. And in countries like France and Greece, it is falling apart at the seems in front of our very eyes.

another one who believes fairy tales!

I guess you don't know anything about Scandinavian economies?

While many western countries are still reeling from the widening economic crisis and some southern European economies are regarded as basket cases, Scandinavia has been weathering the global financial storm surprisingly well.

The facts


Norway Underpinned by high oil prices and exports of related equipment and services, Norway's problems are those of success. Growth is predicted to be high, but increased labour immigration will reduce the risk of costs rising sharply and the economy overheating. It is predicted that wage growth will be much higher than in neighbouring countries, but not so high as to push inflation above target. However, strong economic growth could mean higher interest rates over the next couple of years.

Sweden Despite a weakening labour and export market since the global financial crisis, Sweden's economy is proving to be remarkably resilient. The country's GDP and employment rose again during the first half of this year. Nevertheless, the global economic situation has forced the Swedish finance minister Anders Borg to reduce the country's growth targets.

Denmark Although Denmark's economy has been languishing when compared with Norway and Sweden, activity has remained at about the same level since the autumn of 2010. But it is widely expected that the economy will gradually start to grow again this year, accelerating to 2.1 per cent in 2014. The expected reversal of economic trends will be driven by growing consumer spending.

Finland With its economy no longer propelled by mobile phone maker Nokia, which once accounted for half the value of the Helsinki stock exchange, Finland faces difficulties typified by a slowdown in consumer spending, a growing public sector deficit and an export market that is not expected to start to recover until next year. Nordea has lowered its forecast for economic growth next year from 1.6 per cent to 1.2 per cent. In 2014, growth is expected to be 2.8 per cent.


The fact that Scandinavian countries have onerous tax systems and generous state welfare benefits seems to contradict accepted economic wisdom in other parts of the world, such as in the United States and the United Kingdom, where the role of the state is generally being rolled back where possible in response to the global crisis.

"Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden all belong to the exclusive club of countries with top ratings from the major credit rating agencies. These countries have status as safe havens in financial markets," says Helge Pedersen, the global chief economist at Nordea, a financial services group in the Nordic and Baltic region.

Economists and governments in other less-favoured economies are now starting to ask why it is that Scandinavian economies have been able to avoid the economic turmoil so successfully.

One crucial factor is that some Scandinavian countries received an early inoculation against the kind of boom and bust that has derailed larger and apparently more robust economies, which are still floundering since the US-led housing crash and subsequent financial crisis.


Read more: Scandinavia avoids the financial crisis - The National
 
That is because those who have money and want to help out the less fortunate actually put their money where their mouth is and donate. Its the difference between the talkers and the walkers, and talking never made anyone rich.

so they don't invest?

they just give to charity and then spend all their time on forums complaining about the poor?

where I live we don't do it that way. :)
 
In what sense to you consider it to be a fantasy? Progressive nanny-staters are all about controlling (regulating) other people and taking (redistributing) their property.

I don't think you get it.

when you need to rely on terms like "nanny staters" it becomes obvious that you confuse ideology with economics.
 
I don't think you get it.

when you need to rely on terms like "nanny staters" it becomes obvious that you confuse ideology with economics.

I made no statements regarding economics. I was commenting on those who feel justified in controlling other people's behavior and taking their property.
 
And whats your point? Let me ask you a question, do you shop at a market that best suits your needs, or do you decide to pay more for a lower quality service just because? Free markets means money will flow where the return is the highest and that in turn ensures maximum efficiency. Taxes are no different, without a free diffusion of money from one area to another, countries would have no motivation to maximize the efficiency of their tax systems. Otherwise, the dead-weight losses would just continue to grow larger and larger while R&D and capital investments continue to grow smaller and smaller.

I'm just waiting for the day when our government stops thinking they can fit a square peg into a round hole; and decides to develop a land value tax.

I think I made my point in my last post. Although in terms of taxes I will add that allowing too greater gulf to emerge within society is always dangerous as it risks social and political unrest and this serves no ones interest. :)

Widening gap between rich and poor threatens to swallow us all | Emma Seery | Global development | guardian.co.uk
 
another one who believes fairy tales!

I guess you don't know anything about Scandinavian economies?

They do do one thing right. They have extremely low product market regulation and very low barriers to free trade. They rank very high on economic freedom, and the labor union-business relationship is based on cooperation, rather then law. It seems the left wing in this country wants all the results of their model without the free market aspects of it.

Now, let's address you and your fairy tales.


Are poverty rates in Scandinavian countries low because Scandinavian-style “socialism” works, or are they low because Scandinavians work?

In fairness, it should be noted that they are not the ONLY countries with low poverty rates. Ultra-capitalist Switzerland, which no one would mistake for a socialist country and which has a population similar in size to that of Sweden, appears to have poverty rates lower than those in the Scandinavian utopias.

But an additional reason for the low poverty rates in Scandinavian countries is that these are countries that have very few immigrants. Poverty rates are high almost everywhere in Europe among migrants into those countries. Scandinavian countries with the exception of Sweden have very few immigrants, both in absolute numbers and in terms of the portion of the overall population.

Separate poverty data for the migrant populations in Scandinavian countries are available and there are numerous indications that these are quite high. According to one study, “While first and second generation immigrants constituted 44% of the poor children in 1997, they were 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008. Only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty. For immigrant children with both parents born outside of the Sweden, the child poverty rate is 39%.” Poverty rates have also been shown to be high for immigrants in Denmark. According to a recent study of poverty rates among immigrants in all Scandinavian countries, “While native children face yearly poverty risks of less than 10 percent in all three countries and for all years investigated the increasing proportion of immigrant children with an origin in middle and low income countries have poverty risks that varies from 38 and up to as much as 58 percent.”

So Scandinavian “socialism” is doing a remarkably poor job in eliminating poverty among non-Scandinavians living in those Scandinavian utopias

One way to test our question is to examine Scandinavians who do not live in Scandinavia. There is a large Scandinavian population that lives in the bad-old-selfish-materialist-capitalist United States. Well, it turns out that Scandinavians living under its selfish capitalism also have remarkably low poverty rates. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have studied Scandinavians living in the US and in Sweden and compared their poverty rates. They estimate the poverty rate for Scandinavians living in the United States as 6.7%, half that of the general U.S population. Using measures and definitions of poverty like those used in the US, the same analysts calculate the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold as an identical 6.7% (although it was 10% using an alternative measure). So low poverty among Scandinavians seems to be because Scandinavians work, whether or not Scandinavian “socialism” can be said to work.

Does Scandinavian Socialism Work? | FrontPage Magazine

Sorry your system isn't all that its cracked up to be. Two things are quite predictable from examining the Scandinavian system.
1. If the U.S. were to stop letting poor people into our country and were to strengthen our economic freedom and ensure that everyone worked, we would also have comparably low poverty rates.

2. If we had taxes as high as those of the Scandinavian countries, we would also see a large population of our brightest and hardest working migrating out of the U.S.
 
so they don't invest?

they just give to charity and then spend all their time on forums complaining about the poor?

where I live we don't do it that way. :)

You're missing the point. They both invest, which creates jobs for the poor, and donate money to charity for the poor. They don't waste their time worrying about income inequality because they are actually out there making it in the world.

Usually its the middle class who spends their time on forums complaining about the poor when they see the poor spending their time complaining about the rich. Most rich people I know are very generous. They only complain about the poor when the poor acts entitled rather then grateful for their generosity. Its like that bratty kid who whines about what he got for Christmas.
 
1. Granted, equal outcome is easier with a very small range of circumstances, especially when generally ranging from dead to alive with only food quantity in between.
2. Let's not confuse equal ourcime with equal opportunity. Women were property in ancient society and surely not granted any kind of political or legal equality.

1. Exactly
2. I'm not confusing anything. If communism was about equal opportunity and not equal outcomes I'd probably be a communist. Capitalism is about equal opportunity, communism is not.
 
I think I made my point in my last post. Although in terms of taxes I will add that allowing too greater gulf to emerge within society is always dangerous as it risks social and political unrest and this serves no ones interest. :)

Widening gap between rich and poor threatens to swallow us all | Emma Seery | Global development | guardian.co.uk

You're putting the cart before the horse. Fix our tax code, strengthen our jobs training programs to meet the needs of our country, reduce inner city crime and the wealth inequality will take care of itself.
 
THis says it all.....................




A very eye-opening video. Unfortunately, most conservatives and vulgar 'libertarians' will dismiss it as class envy. They like to ignore the fact that this is not what an open market is supposed to produce.
 
Someone is going to be rich, someone else is going to be poor. There isn't a problem.

Same argument the nobles made.
 
as responses go, that is a complete fail. ITs not my faul lots of people are unable to control their own destinies.

I believe in allowing people to control their own destinies, but to pretend the State and elite are not restricting our abilities to do so is vulgar libertarianism at its worst.

A summary of this thread:

“Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works" — implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles." ~ Kevin Carson
 
Last edited:
Same argument the nobles made.

Sure but there was little if nothing one could do to determine whether they would be noble or peasants.

There is a great deal someone in the United States can do to determine where they fit in the financial spectrum and almost all of that is tied up in education, which we basically give completely free to the poor.

Someone stocking shelves in Walmart isn't doing so because they spent considerable time and effort perusing a better future for themselves. Likewise, someone performing open heart surgery right now isn't doing so because he lazily drifted through life.
 
I don't know why this is a democrat Republican issue. Both of those groups are in league. It is the same thing that occurred prior to the great depression. We are already seeing the great depression consequences in Detroit.

The two foot ball teams or what ever these groups are, their political ideology is almost indistinguishable (on the official level) are not the solution. They are in league with the robber barons of this century. I an not talking about the guy that makes 500 grand a year. But the guy that makes 50 billion a year. People that are friends with the politicians.

Yes it is a serious problem, no socialism isn't the answer, maybe if w just stop giving them money it may help, but that is why our politicians are not the solution. Not just the so and so's or the such and such's but the entire body. Remember we the people are the government, the politicians are our servants.
 
Sure but there was little if nothing one could do to determine whether they would be noble or peasants.

There is a great deal someone in the United States can do to determine where they fit in the financial spectrum and almost all of that is tied up in education, which we basically give completely free to the poor.

Someone stocking shelves in Walmart isn't doing so because they spent considerable time and effort perusing a better future for themselves. Likewise, someone performing open heart surgery right now isn't doing so because he lazily drifted through life.

While we definitely have a certain amount of control over our lives, we are restricted on what we do. Libertarians should know this better than anyone since one of the reasons why they oppose over-regulation and over-taxation is because they restrict what individuals can do.

The so-called 'libertarians' in this thread are doing themselves no favors by defending our current corporatist economy (which is nothing like the free/open market they claim to advocate).
 
Last edited:
So, there are 100,000,000 unemployed laborers here in the United States?

Are you sure about that, Clark? That seems foolish even for you.

Of course I didn't say all 100,000,000 unemployed laborers that you've counted here in the United States can only get jobs in programing. I said if they had the right skill set they could find jobs and that was an example of a skill set.

How many got degrees in computer science?

How about degrees in engineering?

Applied math?

Physics?

IT?

How many of these 100,000,000 that you see went out to earn degrees or certificates in less difficult fields? How many of them became dental hygienists or LPNs? How many of them obtained a degree in physical education for elementary education?

Maybe a better question for you is how many people sat their fat asses down on couches across the United States looking for a handout because they choose not to retrain and find new jobs?

So you disn't look up post labor economy.

Your last sentence proves you're just reciting memes.

There are a handful of fields that are booming. Not everybody was born with the tools to do them. Doesn't matter how hard they try.

"Everybody just needs to get off their lazy asses and better themselves" sounds good, thats why you are encouraged to repeat it.

Doesn't mean it acurately reflects the issues facing us, nor does it offer a real solution.

There aren't enough things that need doing that pay enough to provide an actual life for everybody that is alive. And machines are replacing them daily. AND more are reaching adulthood every day too.

Y'all like to pretend its laziness that lies at the heart of our problems. Dependence, jealousy, wha7ever.

What's really happening is something new, a permanent, continuing replacement of workers with machines. And real limits on new jobs foe those replaced.

Our economic system is malfunctioning.

If a society's economy is functioning properly, all boats shpuld be rising at about the same RATE. Everybody should be getting about the same percent fatter each year.

This isn't happening and hasn't for 30+ years now.

The top fraction of a percent has reaped the vast majority of new wealth/income during that time, while the lower 80% have seen their lot stagnate and even fall.

And there are nowhere near as many "sucking on the public teat" as y'all like to claim. You are welcome to try to prove otherwise.

Technology and the globalism it fosters have changed the game of capitalism at a fundamental level.

All the old maxims are losing relevance.
 
Talking about a "post-labor" economy makes you look foolish. This is what happens when you attempt to teach post-modern pothead sociologists economics. They don't fix their stupidity, instead they inject their stupidity into economics.

You are aware that economic is closer to astrology than it is to physics, right?

It is not a "hard" science.

So save your indignation.
 
5 of them were contractors that benefitted from the housing boom, a couple more of them are rental property guys, and the others just though real estate and other deals. Point is their family lives suck, and they work 80+ hours per week every week, they dream of ways to make their next dollar.

Yeah, but are they paying their fair share? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom