State-funded industry? Come on Dirk, before the 1930s it was far from it and that is when we had our huge boom(s) anyway.
Wealth Distribution in the United States
- Thread starter ArghMonkey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- distribution states united wealth
I know your a libertarian and I know libertarians want to think they are the original conservatives but history doesnt back that up. You pick and chose what you want to believe as much as any other conservative, there were no ideal conservatives, some of the same guys that wrote ur constitution owned slaves! The "conservatives" back then arent recognizable to conservatives today and vice versa. P.S. just wanted o point out that most of ur founding fathers were actually renaissance men that even today would be considered intelligent, progressive and left leaning *L* *sigh*
Just like Iranians who prefer to think they are Persian or Lebanese who swear they are Kurdish, they are all part of the same group.
You want to distance yourself from the religious right, I dont blame you, I would feel sick to be considered reigious myself, but the fact remains they are part of the right, a BIG part of the right, they are as conservative as the next american and sure some distinction should be drawn there but they arent a different colour, all are conservative, the racists, the homophobes, the greedy, the sociopaths etc, have a warm welcome within the conservative party.
Now I respect libertarians more then conservatives for sure, they are essentially anarchists minus the justice, libertarians want money above all else and anarchists want justice above all else, funny how the two ends of the spectrum swing round and meet *L*
Anyway, I think conservatives need to either accept that their party is full of the worst kind of people or abandon it and create something new, the left has everyone from well meaning people to peta on board and they are all still in the left.
Absolutely true! When you dont give a crap about anything but making money its amazing how much money you can make! now some other people and countries have ethical problems that come with the "money at any cost" mentality but americans have said to hell with ethics, lets make a buck! and its made u the richest country in the world, u only lost ur soul, worked to destroy the middle class and nealry bankrupted the world with your horrible greed, some would say your pact with the devil has come back on you, some would u say u deserved it for all the harm youve caused and some would say it aint over yet and unless ur country smartens up its in for more problems, not from terrorists or anyone else but you will destroy yourselves.
At one time you guys were at the top of the list for a lot of things but WW2 is over and you now are only number 1 at the worst sorts of things, debt, war, prisoners, you have a 3rd world survival rate for newborns, your education is subpar, ur the only modern country with pay for care health system.
Having lived in the u.s. I know all americans are indoctrinated to believe that the u.s. is the best country in the world but despite how painful reality might be isent it time americans opened their eyes? you lost, you whine about government but you gave your power over to the rich and corporations and ur middle class is being destroyed, you are still dealing with the largest financial crisis since the great depression, caused by conservative deregulation and you STILL dont get it, oh well, most empires get radical and crazy right before they collapse, its amazing I still even care.
I agree, the corporation has too much power here too but thats all part of my point.
Its bad enough here but in the u.s. its completely insane. The whole world should look at europe and think "geeze, what a right wing nuthouse" but because the u.s. exists u lower the bar for all of humanity.
How so? The major inventions whether it was tractors in farming or the assembly line were inventions of the market, not the state. In fact, the state often misunderstood these things and tried to regulate markets because of them as with the whole mechanization of farming in the first quarter of the 1900s.
Left and right change over time. They were classical liberals, just like I consider myself today. Under today's definitions they would be libertarians, not leftists. As for picking and choosing- I am not sure what you mean, but that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You are just collectivizing here and it is hurting your own ethos. I am not trying to distance myself from anyone, read my last post. Anyway, religion talk doesn't belong in this forum and it really isn't relevant in this topic.
Libertarians don't want money, they just realize that is is OK to have some people be billionaires and others not if the process was driven by equality and free will.
That is a matter of opinion. If you want to use facts and logic go ahead, but no need to say things like "they have the worst kind of people." Both sides have good and bad people.
The largest and most prosperous middle class was the result of a limited government and capitalist system, I have no idea how you are even talking about the middle class when it was essentially America that glorified it. We have undergone these problems as the government has grown and regulative policies have crippled and distorted markets.
We are still the most innovative and advanced health care system in the world. If we let the free market work as it did a few decades ago, we would also have the lower costs and the most efficiency.
"Conservative deregulation" is what made this country so prosperous in the first place. Just watch where Europe ends up if it keeps going down the socialist path it is heading on.
Naturally, there are examples on all sides. For example, i really had the aeronautics industry in mind. What's more, most arms corporations are practically dependent on Government contracts.
Where will it end up, eh? Just because it's not "your" way, doesn't mean it won't yield positive results. Socialist is a huge generalisation. Firstly, there is a vast gulf of difference between social democracy and socialism. And secondly, the definition of socialism - there are several. The modern definition seems to be state-ownership/primacy of the state, others seem to see "socialist" as meaning "the left" in general, but the traditional definition is worker-ownership of the means of production, which is neither here nor there - after all, you've admitted yourself, you agree with a socialist system and a capitalist system coinciding within the same society.
If they were around today the founding fathers would be labeled socialists *L*
I know libertarian consider themselves the original conservatives but thats just not the case, half of what they tolerated was based on what the world was about at that time. I might drive a car and in 200 years someone might come along and say "and mr. arghmonkey was also pro car, as evidenced by the fact that he drove a car", but that wouldnt make me pro car. The founding fathers were also very interested in ethics, libertarians see ethics as an intrusion. No founding father that I have read would enjoy being lumped in with any libertarians, they might have shades of ideas but they wouldnt aling themselves with that group, not at all. Your founding fathers were progressives.
So your ok with the religious, racists, homophobes etc being associated with the conservative right? hmmmm ...
Why not just complain about my grammar? since when are any of us laser focused on the topic? religion, politics and sex are more important and are part of conversations. Maybe I went on about it a bit much but to dismiss it and say this isent the place to bring religion into it, religion is a big part of lots of things to do with politics, especially in the u.s.
They dont want money, they just want people to be able to amass ungodly fortunes without any need to address the damage that causes in society, sorry, not much distinction there.
Free will? so selfishness and the desire to be unfettered while trying to become a billionaire is what drives libertarians, I stand corrected.
I do agree, overall though I think conservatives are worse, in regards to who causes the most damage, who has the most sick ideologies, who is the most repressed, who is the most greedy etc, those are bad human traits, lesser, baser.
No, it was the fact that your land mass was huge, ur population was large, your resources were abundant and then WW2 hit and wiped out anyone that could compete with you.
Give me unlimited resources, a 50 year head start and then convince my population that striving for money is the ultimate good and I will come up with a strong country.
I agreed with you, the u.s. used to have a strong middle class, I am talking about today, its not anymore and its because your shallow thinking has caught up to you. (not u personally, i mean conservative, greedy thinking).
I know u believe this but the fact is it was deregulating how banks invest that caused this directly. You will say "well the ppl should have never been given the money" but I will say go to the root of the problem, the fact that the lending wasent regulated properly in the beginning. All the countries that had modern lending practices have been hurt a lot less then the u.s.
Your not that advanced *L* but sure, ur the 7th most country to spend money on R&D, thats not exactly horrible, not number 1 though and ultimately to get good care in your country you need to be prepared to pay for it and with a shrinking middle class you end up with 35+ million that do not have proper coverage, so remind someone dying of some expensive disease that their real problem is being poor.
And if theories were always fact the universe would contradict itself.
I am talking about the tried and true, your talking about "do what thou wilt".
I see the places where my ideas are played out and they are flourishing, strong middle class and the population rates itself happier then yours, the places with little government oversight are rampant with crime, gangs and corruption, I think of lebanon or some parts of africa or south america.
"ull see" isent a real response but I will make note of it.
and I agreed before, throwing ethics out the window means you get to make an extra dollar, at the end of the day though you will only be screwing urself, welcome to the u.s. 2010 after the worlds largest recession. You want to talk about what-ifs and maybes and shallow theories, I am talking about things that have already been tested for millenia, small incremental changes, putting people above the allmighty dollar and strengthening the middle class.
Which values will lead to a better society in the long run? not cnservative ones ...
I don't think it is such a good idea to stereotype in the sweeping ways that you have been stereotyping as it can easily put you in trouble. Apart from the fact that right and left can not be clearly defined, I think it is quite judgmental and perhaps not even completely accurate to say that religious groups are part of the right. That is almost the equivalent of saying that all people who are to the left of the political spectrum are not religious. Can you back that up with factual evidence?
While there are certainly examples on both sides, are you really telling me that without those wars and other such government-sponsored orders, that the market wouldn't have grown? To that, I would ask for a simple comparison between the markets that relied on the war and those that were independent of it. I think it is quite clear, that even without the wars, our growth would've been tremendous.
Ok, my fault here, I should have been more specific- state-sponsored socialism is what I was referring to. And of course I am no fortuneteller and I did not mean it to come off as such, but looking at market trends, economic law, and history, I think I can make a pretty strong case for why Europe is headed to only repeat the history of the big state at this point. That is for another thread though.
I have no idea how you thought of that idea, but I completely disagree. I am assuming you mean social anarchists as Dirk supports because it is quite clear they weren't state socialists. If so, then why did they replace property with pursuit of happiness in Locke's famous quotation? The founding fathers were libertarians, not egalitarians or socialists.
You obviously do not understand the idea of libertarianism. Libertarians tend to place high value on ethics and morals, which is why they believe a world by equal process will be prosperous. The founding fathers clearly believed in a small government and freedom, both which are virtues of the libertarian ideal.
Why put words in my mouth? I never said that. On the other hand though, by simply attacking religion like this you are only making your self seem collectivist, the very idea that you seem to hate so much in the "religious, racists, homophobes, etc."
If you want to bring it up provide some logic/facts behind it. You tend to just lump religion into things without even explaining how it ties in to those matters specifically.
It does not cause damage to society if it is done of free will. Throw in your excessive regulation and that is when you create bubbles that would never have been naturally caused in a free market.
Human nature will always have selfishness hard-coded into all of us to an extent. The key is in practicing a system that allows for checks and balances without corruption. That process is supply and demand.
And how many other countries were resource-rich and had not 50 but 2000 years to grow and prosper? As for convincing the population of anything, please remember that while we were doing that, a lot of Europe was still under the tyranny of a monarchy. We were the freest nation in the world, so the whole brainwashing argument doesn't exactly work here.
Ah, so you admit we had a strong middle class. A quick look at the policies will show you that it is big government and pro-war policies that have grown in the past 100 years, both policies of the left in America. Are you saying the shrinking middle class of recent times is just a coincidence?
You want to go to the root of the problem? Why don't we look at how the Fed and the GSEs pumped in billions of dollars to inflate the bubble, how interest rates were held artificially low by the Fed to allow more loans, or how the government provided free insurance to the banks and created a moral hazard? It was government that made all this possible, not deregulation. Why don't you tell me what "deregulation" caused all of this to happen. This crisis is the result of government failure more than market failure.
It's not just theory, I told you look at our situation 20 years ago and then talk to me.
I didn't mean it to come off like that. What I meant was in terms of market indicators and the direction of legislation, it is clear Europe is headed for trouble.
You have got to be kidding me ...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx
Is gallup good enough? or is that a left wing group? *L*
Ayn Rand is a popular go to person for libertarians, she was honest about libertarians need to turn selfishness, greed etc into a virtue, at least she faced the implications of her thinking head on, even though she was wrong and essentially mentally ill
Sorry, I was expecting someone of this group to say "hey! the racists, religious, homophobes and stupid rednecks dont speak for me!", but none of u have. Either you dont see it in ur conservative parties (which makes me wonder how hard your looking) or you arent ashamed that those people call themselves conservative (which makes me feel sad for both sides, the ones that are like that and the ones that dont see anything especially wrong with those ppl).
You want to see how religion is party of the GOP?
I think thats just naive and sort of a silly approach, if you have anything I can read about that would be good, but right now that sounds like an ayn rand kind of statement.
Everything needs tweaking, no system is a panacea but our system, with proper regulation, works just fine.
Your forgetting the industrial revolution. The u.s. isent special, it was just in the right place at the right time, thats it!
When the monarchy could convince people that hey were chosen by god they were followed in europe, once people figured out that was nonsense it fell apart for them. In the u.s. your people had to be convinced to put money above everything else and u did and it made u wealthy. Just like a soldier has to be brainwashed to butcher other people that he doesnt know, its all a psychological game to get the masses to do what their masters want them to do.
Im dealing with reality here, the u.s. had a lot going for it 50-60 years ago, your country looked promising in the 60s, u just werent strong enough to go beyond that, europe took the hand off and havent looked back.
Its not that government got big that things went to shit for you, your country has steadily made more money since then, not less, its just been funneled to fewer and fewer people and the reason for that is because since Reagan got in you have been removing all the safe guards, things that were designed to make sure that the middle class stayed strong.
The result is government failure, failure to regulate banks and corporations.
This sums it up perfectly ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giant_Pool_of_Money
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355
You had some better standards 20 years ago than now.
I cant help but see the irony here of an american saying europe is heading down the wrong path while its the u.s. thats losing ground, the u.s. with poor living standard, the u.s. with poor health care access, the u.s. with a shrinking middle class and the u.s. that i picking up the pieces after the single largest financial disaster in nearly 100 years, but europe with its strong middle class, worker rights, social services and progressive ideals is doomed! *L* by all means, tell me its a flesh wound and that you will come out ahead *LOL*
[youtube]zKhEw7nD9C4[/youtube]
No. I am hypothesising (quite justifiably) that state-driven enterprise played a part in stimulating growth. What's more, state intervention in the economy has played a part in US economic development. Whether it was beneficial is up for debate, naturally.
Sure, it may have been. But too many wars, too often, makes sectors of the economy dependent on the Government. And remember, it's not only arms companies that benefit from a good ol' war, eh?
Remember, all three are perfectly possible together.
No no, your market was/is one of the freest in the world. There's a difference between markets and people. That's important.
If you give "big business" the ownership of the media, they will print the opinions and ideals most beneficial to them - same with the state.
Most of Europe's state economy is quite strong, actually. It played a part in Germany and France emerging from the recession. That's not to say it's the best system, just that the idea that "free markets" are the only way to economic prosperity is fallacious.
Ah, but remember that the roots of conservatism show a strong anti-war preference, as does our Constitution. I am no warmonger Dirk and the founding fathers were clearly for a more isolationist nation in terms of military. As Thomas Jefferson said, "commerce with all, alliance with none"
The thing is though, that the market will always provide a check/balance to itself. It already has in the United States. I am not sure if you are aware of the major media players, but there is a huge rift between the more conservative media outlets- Fox, WSJ, etc. and the more liberal ones- MSNBC, CNN, etc. And with the invent of the internet, all the giants are getting criticized and commented on every single thing they do by millions of other people on blogs, websites, and forums.
Regulation always distorts markets- can we agree on that? If so, you would also agree with me that when the state attempts to manipulate markets, it is almost always distorting them and in turn causing instabilities. They may be long term instabilities, but they are there. We see history littered with it from the Great Depression to the current recession in America to the Soviets (I know they had other problems, but looking solely at the economy you can still see it), China during the "Great Leap" years, India from independence to ~1991 when they ditched the protectionist model, etc.
And ArghMonkey, I have no idea why but you seem to think that because the right has some fringe members, that those people characterize the entire right. What about the radicals on the left? Those who want to put in totalitarian governments or are willing to kill millions to raise awareness for their causes- because they do exist and in the same number that right extremists exists. Both sides have extremists and until you accept to see that, you will be seeing a one-sided argument.
As for being in trouble, I agree the US is also in trouble right now, but this is all the result of leftist, big-government policies, not conservatism or free markets. The size of government has more than doubled in recent years and welfare and corporate welfare have both grown. It doesn't matter if a Republican was in office if he pushed leftist policies- in the end the parties don't matter the policies do.
And about the financial crisis, that show mentions the Fed and how it played a part. More so though, think about what caused those businesses to do what they did. Government created a moral hazard by essentially guaranteeing a bailout for those companies, so how can you blame them for doing what they did? It was in the best interest of themselves. The role of business is not to look out for the people, it is the government's role to represent the people and the government failed by pumping up this bubble and forgetting sound money with a loose monetary policy.
edit: Also wanted to add that religion is NOT extremism. If you think so, then you think billions of people world-wide are extremists and if you think that, then you have simply changed the meaning of the word extreme. I know the GOP has a bigger religious presence. So what?
edit again: added some more about the financial crisis
Similar threads
