What's new

Capitalism & poverty in the U.S.

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 9, 2009
12,550
0
7,961
Capitalism & poverty in the U.S.

Capitalism, say some advocates, was a great human invention. According to this theory, the system was born from the ambition of men and the striving for wealth, personal power and public recognition for individuals who stood out in the community, and could live longer and better at the expense of others.

All these objectives required the commitment of time, strength and mind. It was a way for what was called "civilization," although there were others, more generous, and in pursuit of justice. Like all processes of life, capitalism has its limits. When you get past the looting and plundering, and this has occurred several times in history, there are major crises that almost always lead to bloody conflicts, internal and external.

Foreign Affairs magazine reflects the concerns of the American intelligentsia (both the left and right). Published in its latest issue is an excellent essay by George Packer - "The broken contract, Inequality and American Decline." Packer is a man of the establishment. His parents are professors at Stanford University. His maternal grandfather, George Huddleston, of Alabama, was the Democratic representative in Congress for twenty years.

The journalist shows that social inequality in the United States has worsened over the past roughly 33 years - from 1978. That year, with high rates of inflation, the increase in gasoline prices, higher unemployment and widespread pessimism, there was a major change in American life. The great interests acted in order to charge the crisis to the state of social welfare and regulation of economic life that came from the New Deal.

Public opinion was intoxicated by this idea and gave confidence in the established social commitment in the years during the 30s and 40s. According to Packer, this commitment was that of a middle-class democracy. It was an unwritten social contract between labor, business and government, which ensured wider distribution of the benefits of the economy and prosperity after the war - as in no other time in history.

A significant factor: in 70 years, is that the highest-paid executives in the United States received 40 times the salary of the lowest paid workers of their companies. In 2007, they started to receive 400 times more. In those 70 years, Packer records, the American elites were even responsible for the fate of the country, and with the natural exceptions, watched over by their institutions and interests.

There is, the author ponders, a lot of injustice, especially against blacks from the South. Like all seasons, the post-war until 1970 had its costs, but the situation in 2011 had seemed bearable.

In 70 years, there was stagflation, which combined economic stagnation with inflation and high interest rates. Wages were eroded by inflation, unemployment rose, and the confidence of Americans in government fell, also because of the Watergate scandal and the disaster that was the adventure of Vietnam.

Capitalism seemed in danger and this alarmed the wealthy, who sought to respond immediately. They worked - especially since 1978 - to secure their position, making it even stronger. They tried to strengthen their influence by enhancing lobbyng, which has always existed, but, except for some cases, was limited to whiskey and cigars.

Since then, bribery has become common practice. In 1971, there were 141 companies represented by lobbyists in Washington. In 1982, there were 2,445.

Reagan's long and massive transfer of income in the country in favor the wealthiest Americans became more serious. It was constant, both in the best periods of the economy as the worst, under Democratic presidents or Republican, or Democrat to Republican majorities in Congress.

Representatives and Senators - always with exceptions - started to normally receive bribes from Wall Street. Packer cites the statement of Republican Robert Dole in 1982, "The poor do not contribute to election campaigns."

Packer goes deeper: inequality is like an odorless gas that reaches all corners of the country - but it seems impossible to find its source and close the tap. Between 1974 and 2006, the income of the middle class grew 21%, while that of poor Americans grew by only 11%.

The incomes of one percent of the richest grew by 256%, over ten times those of the middle class, and almost tripled its share in total income of the country, 23%, the highest level since 1928 - the eve of the Great Depression.

This registered growth came from before. From Kennedy to Bush the second, slower before Reagan, and then faster, the American rich have become richer.

Inequality, Packer concludes, favors the division of classes, and imprisons people in the circumstances of their birth, which constitutes a historical denial of the idea of ​​the "American dream."

He concludes: "Inequality divides us in the schools, between neighbors, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, what we eat, our physical condition, what we think, the future of our children and even about our death." Finally, inequality is exacerbated by the boundless ambitions of capitalism, not only with violence against ethics, but also against logic. It's crazy, it's madness.

To the whole world - the commentary is ours - there was imposed due to the absence of statesmen ready to react, the same pattern of inequality seen with Reaganism and Thatcherism. The most recent economic crisis, caused by the greed of Wall Street, served as a lesson to those servile to the rulers of money, who were handed to the salaried technocrats of the international financial system.

Yesterday, Mario Monti, a Goldman Sachs man, placed in power by the creditors of Italy, was still demanding of the Parliament the security of remaining at the leadership of government until 2013. This means violating the constitution of the country, which gives the people's representatives the power of denying confidence to the government and, depending on the situation, calling elections.

The right path is the more equitable distribution of national income, expanding the domestic market and thus combat inequality and submit the technocracy to political reason. It is necessary, among other measures, to keep a close watch on the private banks, mostly foreign, who are covering the shenanigans of its central institutions with high profits in our country and other Latin American countries.

Capitalism and poverty in the U.S. - English pravda.ru
 
Free market economics leads to death of middle class and dangerous inequality. This is nothing new and has been proven countless times in countless countries, and economists who appear to be great patrons of free market economics are basically on corporate payroll.
 
lol, a Russian source :lol:

Free market is necessary. Capitalism is necessary for growth. But it has to be responsible.

A purely command economy is not sustainable.
 
lol, a Russian source :lol:

Free market is necessary. Capitalism is necessary for growth. But it has to be responsible.

A purely command economy is not sustainable.

It's written by a Brazilian but has been translated to English by the Russian newspaper. :D
 
Free market economics leads to death of middle class and dangerous inequality. This is nothing new and has been proven countless times in countless countries, and economists who appear to be great patrons of free market economics are basically on corporate payroll.
And we know that YOU will gladly live under such a system.

===
Should the Rich Be Condemned?

By Walter E. Williams
11/23/2011

Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb, the phonograph, the DC motor and other items in everyday use and became wealthy by doing so. Thomas Watson founded IBM and became rich through his company's contribution to the computation revolution. Lloyd Conover, while in the employ of Pfizer, created the antibiotic tetracycline. Though Edison, Watson, Conover and Pfizer became wealthy, whatever wealth they received pales in comparison with the extraordinary benefits received by ordinary people. Billions of people benefited from safe and efficient lighting. Billions more were the ultimate beneficiaries of the computer, and untold billions benefited from healthier lives gained from access to tetracycline.

President Barack Obama, in stoking up class warfare, said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." This is lunacy. Andrew Carnegie's steel empire produced the raw materials that built the physical infrastructure of the United States. Bill Gates co-founded Microsoft and produced software products that aided the computer revolution. But Carnegie had amassed quite a fortune long before he built Carnegie Steel Co., and Gates had quite a fortune by 1990. Had they the mind of our president, we would have lost much of their contributions, because they had already "made enough money."

Class warfare thrives on ignorance about the sources of income. Listening to some of the talk about income differences, one would think that there's a pile of money meant to be shared equally among Americans. Rich people got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. Justice requires that they "give back." Or, some people talk about unequal income distribution as if there were a dealer of dollars. The reason some people have millions or billions of dollars while others have very few is the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multinationalist or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the ill-gotten gains of the few are returned to their rightful owners.

In a free society, for the most part, people with high incomes have demonstrated extraordinary ability to produce valuable services for -- and therefore please -- their fellow man. People voluntarily took money out of their pockets to purchase the products of Gates, Pfizer or IBM. High incomes reflect the democracy of the marketplace. The reason Gates is very wealthy is millions upon millions of people voluntarily reached into their pockets and handed over $300 or $400 for a Microsoft product. Those who think he has too much money are really registering disagreement with decisions made by millions of their fellow men.

In a free society, in a significant way income inequality reflects differences in productive capacity, namely one's ability to please his fellow man. For example, I can play basketball and so can LeBron James, but would the Miami Heat pay me anything close to the $43 million they pay him? If not, why not? I think it has to do with the discriminating tastes of basketball fans who pay $100 or more to watch the game. If the Miami Heat hired me, they would have to pay fans to watch.

Stubborn ignorance sees capitalism as benefiting only the rich, but the evidence refutes that. The rich have always been able to afford entertainment; it was the development and marketing of radio and television that made entertainment accessible to the common man. The rich have never had the drudgery of washing and ironing clothing, beating out carpets or waxing floors. The mass production of washing machines, wash-and-wear clothing, vacuum cleaners and no-wax floors spared the common man this drudgery. At one time, only the rich could afford automobiles, telephones and computers. Now all but a small percentage of Americans enjoy these goods.

The prospects are dim for a society that makes mascots out of the unproductive and condemns the productive.

Walter E. Williams
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of 'Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?' and 'Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.'
 
If it wasn't for capitalism, third world countries like China and India would have no hope of development.

Whatever development Asia has seen, we owe it to capitalism.
 
I see that some posters have misunderstood what i was trying to say. I was nt talking about capitalism vs communism when i said free market economics is bad. By no means was i saying that capitalism is bad, and being rich is bad or any other nonsense such as that. What i meant is there has to be regulated capitalism, because leaving it all out in the open leads firms to take risks that would not only bankrupt themselves but could also bring down the economy itself. That is exactly what happened in the 2008 meltdown, banks took risks they should nt have taken that involved not only themselves but the whole world economy. Proper regulation could have prevented it.

@ gambit : The author of your article starts the article on faulty premises. Thomas Edison did invent certain things, but he never invented the electricity we use today, it was invented by NIKOLA TESLA. Edison invented DC current, and Tesla invented AC current, and we only use AC current... Apart from the electricity we use today, radar technology, wireless data transfer(basics of internet), wireless electricity transfer and a whole lot of other things were invented by him. However, Tesla's interest was never acquiring wealth, while Edison's prime interest was $$$.

Infact, if you look properly, people like Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla and pretty much all of the greatest scientists who are responsible for the greatest breakthroughs in science were never after wealth...If you want i can drag this debate but i think you get the point i was trying to make. And just for the record i dont want to live under a absolutely deregulated system.

More about Tesla here

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to this theory, the system was born from the ambition of men and the striving for wealth, personal power and public recognition for individuals who stood out in the community, and could live longer and better at the expense of others.
Ahh...No. In general principle: Capitalism is about the right to private property and the freedom to do as one wish with said private property.
 
I see that some posters have misunderstood what i was trying to say. I was nt talking about capitalism vs communism when i said free market economics is bad.
Pretty much they are the same thing.

By no means was i saying that capitalism is bad, and being rich is bad or any other nonsense such as that. What i meant is there has to be regulated capitalism, because leaving it all out in the open leads firms to take risks that would not only bankrupt themselves but could also bring down the economy itself. That is exactly what happened in the 2008 meltdown, banks took risks they should nt have taken that involved not only themselves but the whole world economy. Proper regulation could have prevented it.
Targeted regulations. Agreed.

@ gambit : The author of your article starts the article on faulty premises. Thomas Edison did invent certain things, but he never invented the electricity we use today, it was invented by NIKOLA TESLA. Edison invented DC current, and Tesla invented AC current, and we only use AC current... Apart from the electricity we use today, radar technology, wireless data transfer(basics of internet), wireless electricity transfer and a whole lot of other things were invented by him. However, Tesla's interest was never acquiring wealth, while Edison's prime interest was $$$.
That was not the crux of Williams' piece. Electricity cannot be 'invented', only discovered. By that gross error, you disqualified yourself from criticizing that aspect of Williams' commentary. As for whether Tesla had any desire to profit -- minimally or moderately or obscenely -- from any of his discoveries, that is a moral issue between Tesla and his conscience. Same for the other gents.
 
An interesting picture

steve-jobs-vs-dennis-ritchie.jpg
 
Ahh...No. In general principle: Capitalism is about the right to private property and the freedom to do as one wish with said private property.
And it's about the right to Rob tax too ,mr Gambit, open your eyes and see those greedy guys in Wall str robbing your Money now ...But you're just so timid , braveless to stop those Mafia group :cool:
 
And the point of this is...???

The author of your article seemed to be implying that inventions can be attributed to capitalism as it provides an incentive for people to work/invent. My point is capitalism is not responsible for making automobiles and other luxuries available to general populace, it is scientific advancement which has made it possible. And as i have mentioned earlier, major scientific breakthroughs were made by people whose interest were not in $$$. And anyone will agree that people become rich not because of the scientific breakthroughs they make, but because of proper monetizing of these breakthroughs.
 
The author of your article seemed to be implying that inventions can be attributed to capitalism as it provides an incentive for people to work/invent. My point is capitalism is not responsible for making automobiles and other luxuries available to general populace, it is scientific advancement which has made it possible. And as i have mentioned earlier, major scientific breakthroughs were made by people whose interest were not in $$$. And anyone will agree that people become rich not because of the scientific breakthroughs they make, but because of proper monetizing of these breakthroughs.

Linux sucks bro :P

The C language has gone through many development stages, including the drive toward object oriented concepts.

And Finland also follow a free market economy.
 
The author of your article seemed to be implying that inventions can be attributed to capitalism as it provides an incentive for people to work/invent. My point is capitalism is not responsible for making automobiles and other luxuries available to general populace, it is scientific advancement which has made it possible. And as i have mentioned earlier, major scientific breakthroughs were made by people whose interest were not in $$$. And anyone will agree that people become rich not because of the scientific breakthroughs they make, but because of proper monetizing of these breakthroughs.
Then you missed his point COMPLETELY. Case closed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom