Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all due respect, I think I know far better what the definition of socialism is, then you do. Socialism has been about eliminated gross inequalities in wealth since the very beginning. Socialism - Wikipedia
and where was that about spreading things evenly?
you can be "uneven" and still do those things
people in the US fail to recognize that even if someone else has more than them, that doesn't mean they are doing bad themselves... stop comparing junk sizes with each other and envy isn't an issue
The 1% who "grabbed" 82% of all wealth created are probably the same people who are paying 82% of all the money spent on the poor. You like to see what a country looks like without the one percent, look at Kenya. Happy there?
whats wrong with kenya. it seems to be one of the wealthier former european colonies in africa and the masai tribe has avoided european rule for thousands of years and are still flourishing.
If you think capitalism is greed and that wealth redistribution is morally sound, I have a bridge in Venezuela you might be interested in.
Egalitarianism is slavery wrapped in the seductive promise of a Utopian society that is always 15 to 20 years down the road.
You know, in Venezuela, the army is deserting, the population is eating the zoo animals, and life is generally miserable for all but friends of Chavez/Maduro. And some of those lucky socialists have moved to Florida and bought big, walled houses. Suffering is for others. The little people.
You have to have some good scratch to buy those kinds of properties. How do you think they got so rich in a country where capitalist enterprises are nationalized for the benefit of "all"?
my cousin married a venezuelan. their fuel is like 50¢ a gallon. venezuela seems fairly self-sufficient and mostly middle-class ?
Communism has failed. Socialism is alive and well and working wonders in many countries. For example: China, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, and Belgium.
We are seeing capitalism fail, just as communism did. It's not a matter of everyone having the same piece of the pie. It's that the 1% will soon have the entire pie. It's pretty hard to have a successful political system where 1% prosper, and 99% suffer.
seems you are mixing signals. communism (not to be confused with socialism) is a form of government; capitalism (not to be confused with republic or democracy) is a social ideology.
Communism has failed. Socialism is alive and well and working wonders in many countries. For example: China, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, and Belgium.
That's not socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
And people apparently seem to think the rich just horde this money in a bunker. It’s all capital being put to use around the world.
Bingo. Banks take that money and use it to loan out to others for mortgages, cars, investments, businesses etc. and further contribute to the economy.
The rich don't have millions just laying around in their mattress being devalued by deflation.
seems you are mixing signals. communism (not to be confused with socialism) is a form of government; capitalism (not to be confused with republic or democracy) is a social ideology.
I'm not confused, but I will take China off the list. Since it's controlled by the Communist Party. So I agree that it should be classified as communist. But they are still the #2 economy. So they are doing something right. Which means that even communism is not dead. By 2030 China will be the #1 economy in the world. So even communism will eventually beat capitalism. What does that say about the future of capitalism?
The "1%" is not a group of people, it's an income level.
Stop with the stupid politics of envy!
I purposely left out my opinion to encourage debate and discussion. This concentration of wealth is almost a law of nature, and can be applied to many aspects of nature outside of economics. There is nothing good or bad about it, it merely is. Though the system we have is not perfect, I'd be hard pressed to say that there's a better way, at least until we have the technology to automate our jobs, provide free food and energy, etc. I'm pleased to see some good discussion come of the article.
More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.
That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.
Guess the bottom 50% needs to work harder and get better educated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
