• 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!

Myths About Capitalism


Denial is such a powerful thing. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Your wage estimates for skilled labor don't address the right demographic.
That's why you cut costs and become more efficient.

Are you being wasteful now? I would think a business owner would have already cut costs as much as possible and become as efficient as can be expected. That also doesn't put money in the pockets of consumers.

There are a lot of inequities in our system. However, I don't think that we should gut the whole thing.

Neither do I, but there do need to be some systemic changes that address the heart of the problem instead of putting band-aids on them.

The life of the average American has been getting better for a while. I fail to a revolution in the future.

You seem to want to compare everyone to your own personal experience in life. If you are comfortable enough not to see any of these problems, then you are not an "average" American.
 
Denial is such a powerful thing. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Your wage estimates for skilled labor don't address the right demographic.


I saw a lot of statistics about the disparity of wealth. That doesn't mean that income is a fixed pie. The median income of the average American is still well above minimum wage.

Are you being wasteful now? I would think a business owner would have already cut costs as much as possible and become as efficient as can be expected. That also doesn't put money in the pockets of consumers.


Then they find a better way to do it. No one's business plan is perfect. If no one can afford their product, they'll go out of business.

Neither do I, but there do need to be some systemic changes that address the heart of the problem instead of putting band-aids on them.


I agree, but I think we go in two different directions on this.

You seem to want to compare everyone to your own personal experience in life. If you are comfortable enough not to see any of these problems, then you are not an "average" American.

No, the average Joe American, not just me, has better transportation, medicine, entertainment, income, and time-saving devices than ever before (the current crisis non-withstanding).
 
always worth a repost:

How Poor Are America's Poor?

..The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the averagecitizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians...
 
American workers get less paid holidays than the rest of the rich nations.

Paid Holidays/Vacation Days in the U.S. Versus Other OECD Countries

"We’re a nation of people working harder and harder for less and less, and the merest suggestion that we should do anything other than work 9 hour days without pause until we drop dead is met with cries of socialism…" (from article)
 
Last edited:
I saw a lot of statistics about the disparity of wealth. That doesn't mean that income is a fixed pie. The median income of the average American is still well above minimum wage.

The median includes those who pull down millions per year. That is bound to skew things in an upward direction. Take everyone who makes more than $250,000 per year out and then average it.

If no one can afford their product, they'll go out of business.

Exactly! Now we're on the same page.

I agree, but I think we go in two different directions on this.

I would love to hear some of your ideas.

No, the average Joe American, not just me, has better transportation, medicine, entertainment, income, and time-saving devices than ever before (the current crisis non-withstanding).

I understand that you believe that, and I can even see why you might not see evidence to the contrary. For people who you identify as being a part of your "in group" that is probably true. Do you see people who are poor as being deserving of their lot? Are you of the opinion that every American is on a level playing field with the same opportunities and potential? I have a feeling that I already know the answer.
 
The median includes those who pull down millions per year. That is bound to skew things in an upward direction. Take everyone who makes more than $250,000 per year out and then average it.

You're thinking of mean. Median shows what the middle earning guy makes, and it's a lot more than $7.25 an hour.

Exactly! Now we're on the same page.

And that's why they make efforts for you to be able to afford it.

I would love to hear some of your ideas.

Reduce government spending; end corporate personhood; end bailouts; have a simple, low, and slightly progressive tax code; and reduce military spending.

I understand that you believe that, and I can even see why you might not see evidence to the contrary. For people who you identify as being a part of your "in group" that is probably true.

Firstly, look at cpwill's link. Secondly, the life expectancy has jumped 8 years despite an obesity explosion, we've got better TV, you're on a computer that fits in your room, cars don't suck, real income has gone up across the board. Thirdly, go tell your parents and or grandparents and tell them how life today is no better than when they were your age, and watch them laugh in your face.

Do you see people who are poor as being deserving of their lot? Are you of the opinion that every American is on a level playing field with the same opportunities and potential? I have a feeling that I already know the answer.

A very loaded question. Firstly, I don't think the poor are generally stupid or lazy, and only ones I call welfare queens are corporations. For some people, life really does take a crap on them, but most people can get out of poverty if they make the right choices. Also, our welfare and entitlement system encourages its recipients to not get off of it. Many people don't stay on welfare who and are able to get off don't do it because of laziness. It's in their best interest to do so.
 
ALIHAYMEG said:
Profit motive is not the only incentive to do good work. If it were, I would have officially lost all faith in humanity as a whole. No, actually there are better incentives which have been demonstrated through the scientific
People deal with each other for mutual benefit, not because they're looking out for each other's well being, but for what each gain from the exchange, one for the good or service, and the other one by the money pay to him. It's free exchange for mutual benefit, not a love affair or an exercise in dependency. People are naturally selfish and self-interested. It's human nature.
 
You're thinking of mean. Median shows what the middle earning guy makes, and it's a lot more than $7.25 an hour.

Yes, the middle amount is more than $7.25 per hour. That doesn't address the fact that the top 1% of our population controls 37% of the country's wealth which is much more than the bottom 90% control. This brief video shows it plain enough.

Firstly, look at cpwill's link. Secondly, the life expectancy has jumped 8 years despite an obesity explosion, we've got better TV, you're on a computer that fits in your room, cars don't suck, real income has gone up across the board. Thirdly, go tell your parents and or grandparents and tell them how life today is no better than when they were your age, and watch them laugh in your face.

Real income has not gone up across the board. There has been a continuing trend of wealth being funneled upward to the top 1%. The top 20% are doing just fine while the bottom 80% is struggling. I'm really surprised that you are not willing to admit this even in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 100 years. You must fall into that top 20%.

Reduce government spending; end corporate personhood; end bailouts; have a simple, low, and slightly progressive tax code; and reduce military spending.

All of that sounds very good. Try convincing that top 1% to let it happen though. They like things just as they are.

A very loaded question. Firstly, I don't think the poor are generally stupid or lazy, and only ones I call welfare queens are corporations. For some people, life really does take a crap on them, but most people can get out of poverty if they make the right choices. Also, our welfare and entitlement system encourages its recipients to not get off of it. Many people don't stay on welfare who and are able to get off don't do it because of laziness. It's in their best interest to do so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare queens are corporations". Care to elaborate on that?
One big problem with the poor is that they are quite ignorant. (In the "lacking knowledge" sense of the word) I also agree that most people could better themselves and break free of poverty if they knew what the right choices were. It is a common misconception that welfare recipients don't get off of the system due to laziness. There are a select few that cannot be reached, but the majority of them will respond to the right incentives. I'm not just guessing here. I work in the TANF program and I am very familiar with how it functions. There have been some very good improvements to the system in recent years that have given workers the ability to effect real change in people’s lives. It's not perfect by any means, but it could get a lot closer with the right backing and support. I lived most of my life in poverty and could never see any way out until somebody reached out to me and was able to show me that I actually did have options. It can't be done without support though. I would have never made it from a high school drop out to a degree holding honors graduate without constant support and encouragement. Those are the things most lacking when it comes to the poor. The cycle of dependence can be broken forever in a family with the right approach and support. We still have a long way to go. We certainly can't abandon innocent children to die of starvation because of their parent’s poor work ethic.
 
People deal with each other for mutual benefit, not because they're looking out for each other's well being, but for what each gain from the exchange, one for the good or service, and the other one by the money pay to him. It's free exchange for mutual benefit, not a love affair or an exercise in dependency. People are naturally selfish and self-interested. It's human nature.

Not all people are selfish. Rush limbaugh does preach that greed is a virtue. It's part of Reaganomics.
 
People deal with each other for mutual benefit, not because they're looking out for each other's well being, but for what each gain from the exchange, one for the good or service, and the other one by the money pay to him. It's free exchange for mutual benefit, not a love affair or an exercise in dependency. People are naturally selfish and self-interested. It's human nature.

Yes indeed, but I think transforming this conversation form one of incentive to one of the merits of altruism is a derailment. The question is "what is the best incentive to get the best work out of people." The research shows that the "carrot and stick" only works to a point.
 
Yes indeed, but I think transforming this conversation form one of incentive to one of the merits of altruism is a derailment. The question is "what is the best incentive to get the best work out of people." The research shows that the "carrot and stick" only works to a point.

The same thing could be said about slavery.
 
The same thing could be said about slavery.

Slavery is a good comparison. The slave masters were just forced to call it something different. Now we are enslaved to indebtedness. All you have to do is take the profits that the workers produce and lend it back to them with interest. It's a win-win for the "ruling class" and a bottomless pit of debt for the "working class”. Good analogy.
 
always worth a repost:

No one is disputing these facts. The SNAP and TANF programs have done a lot to reduce hunger and homelessness in America. The issue is not that people are starving but that there is an increasingly large rift between the incomes of the rich and the poor. What we are discussing is the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth. I bet not one of you who think things are fine makes less than $50,000 a year.
 
Yes, the middle amount is more than $7.25 per hour. That doesn't address the fact that the top 1% of our population controls 37% of the country's wealth which is much more than the bottom 90% control. This brief video shows it plain enough.


Real income has not gone up across the board. There has been a continuing trend of wealth being funneled upward to the top 1%. The top 20% are doing just fine while the bottom 80% is struggling. I'm really surprised that you are not willing to admit this even in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 100 years. You must fall into that top 20%.


and...? Some people having a lot doesn't mean that others have little. Economics isn't a zero-sum game. Most people make far more than $7.25 an hour. Real income has been going up across the board, just more quickly for some.

All of that sounds very good. Try convincing that top 1% to let it happen though. They like things just as they are.

Even with all their lobbying influence, they're just that 1%. The key is to educate the populace about the dangers of government-business collusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare queens are corporations". Care to elaborate on that?

They lobby and bend the rules to get handouts that they don't need.

One big problem with the poor is that they are quite ignorant. (In the "lacking knowledge" sense of the word) I also agree that most people could better themselves and break free of poverty if they knew what the right choices were. It is a common misconception that welfare recipients don't get off of the system due to laziness. There are a select few that cannot be reached, but the majority of them will respond to the right incentives. I'm not just guessing here. I work in the TANF program and I am very familiar with how it functions. There have been some very good improvements to the system in recent years that have given workers the ability to effect real change in people’s lives. It's not perfect by any means, but it could get a lot closer with the right backing and support. I lived most of my life in poverty and could never see any way out until somebody reached out to me and was able to show me that I actually did have options. It can't be done without support though. I would have never made it from a high school drop out to a degree holding honors graduate without constant support and encouragement. Those are the things most lacking when it comes to the poor. The cycle of dependence can be broken forever in a family with the right approach and support. We still have a long way to go. We certainly can't abandon innocent children to die of starvation because of their parent’s poor work ethic.

I never said that one's an island, and I specifically stated that I don't think the poor are generally lazy. Relatively simple things such as marriage, can pull many if not most poor kids out of poverty. Allowing parents to have greater school choice and improving their kid's chances in schools helps. However, many government programs do encourage poverty. Many of the recipients aren't lazy, but it's in their best interest to stay in the system.
 
Slavery is a good comparison. The slave masters were just forced to call it something different. Now we are enslaved to indebtedness. All you have to do is take the profits that the workers produce and lend it back to them with interest. It's a win-win for the "ruling class" and a bottomless pit of debt for the "working class”. Good analogy.

No one forces you into debt. By definition, you are forced into slavery.
 
No one forces you into debt. By definition, you are forced into slavery.

The meaning of words changes over time. For example I have a 20 year old mirriam webster dictionary and many words are defined differently in the new edition..
 
They have car loan companies that the poor frequent that charge 300% interest per year. It used to be a crime called loansharking. Thanks to our fearless leaders former crime is not sanctified by law.:(
 
They have car loan companies that the poor frequent that charge 300% interest per year. It used to be a crime called loansharking. Thanks to our fearless leaders former crime is not sanctified by law.:(

How else are they gonna get credit?
 
and...? Some people having a lot doesn't mean that others have little. Economics isn't a zero-sum game. Most people make far more than $7.25 an hour. Real income has been going up across the board, just more quickly for some.

So you don't think that there are any poor people in America then? Is it that or do you just see no reason to care?

Even with all their lobbying influence, they're just that 1%. The key is to educate the populace about the dangers of government-business collusion.

Yes, but the 1% control 37% of the wealth which translates to them being in control. Money is power and those with the power control the politics. I couldn't agree more that the key to changing this is education though.

They lobby and bend the rules to get handouts that they don't need.

They meaning who? Are you talking about the poor? I didn't realize that they had any lobbying influence.

I never said that one's an island, and I specifically stated that I don't think the poor are generally lazy. Relatively simple things such as marriage, can pull many if not most poor kids out of poverty. Allowing parents to have greater school choice and improving their kid's chances in schools helps. However, many government programs do encourage poverty. Many of the recipients aren't lazy, but it's in their best interest to stay in the system.

Are you advocating forced marriage? The government push to encourage marriage for welfare recipients has been over for a while now. That didn't work. The nature of marriage and the traditional ideas of family are changing rapidly for younger generations. It's not the coveted and respected institution that it once was. A better choice for education is definitely one of the keys. It's difficult for parents to take the time they need to spend with their kids studying when both parents are forced to work in order to survive though. Families don't dine together anymore because they don't have time. I'm aware of some problems with the welfare system, but I'm curious as to what specific policies or procedures that you see as being responsible for people being better off staying in the system. What are you basing that on?
 
No one forces you into debt. By definition, you are forced into slavery.

Really? Tell that to the millions of Americans who just lost their homes in the latest bubble. Could they have afforded a house without going into debt? Not in a million years. Can people afford to go buy a car like they used to, saving and paying cash for it? Not hardly. Oh no, we are all forced into debt. That is how the "ruling class" solved the problem of the "working class" not being able to consume any more. They lent them back the money that the workers produced for them with interest. Talk about a happy day for the rich! We are all overextended and working at maximum production levels. There is nowhere to go but down. The spiral has already begun. We are in debt up to our eyeballs with home loans, car loans, student loans, credit card debt, etc. Try living without going into debt. See how long you last. How is that not being forced into it?
 

Different dictionnaires have different meanings. I would trust a hard copy dictionary before an internet one.

There are even legal dictionnaires that trump public ones in a court of law.

Saying that a word has the same meaning as it did at it's origin defies the law of evolution and is a fallacy.
 
Different dictionnaires have different meanings. I would trust a hard copy dictionary before an internet one.

There are even legal dictionnaires that trump public ones in a court of law.

Saying that a word has the same meaning as it did at it's origin defies the law of evolution and is a fallacy.

Then what definition are you using?
 
Back
Top Bottom